Forbes India

Almost every other week I get an invitation to speak about some horrifically imagined ‘technology meets creativity’ type seminar. Marketing is becoming part data-engineering and part surveillance. It is referred to as ‘technology-enabled storytelling’ Metrics rule the world of brand building. I am all for harnessing the power of technology and data, but the mule cannot ride the man. The most precious thing in brand building is an idea. Creative imagination has unmatched power to build iconic brands. But this truth is being ignored perhaps because there are not enough creative ideas.   [siteorigin_widget class=”SiteOrigin_Widget_Image_Widget”][/siteorigin_widget] Creative agencies are large corporations. They look at creative work in terms of revenue and cost. Doing culture building creative work is the most interesting thing to do in marketing. There is a lot of false pride in the creation of legendary creative personas. That said, it is beyond dispute that creative gold dust develops brand appeal. Consumers don’t read your annual plan, vision documents, emails, excel sheets or even the much hyped ‘briefs’. They only see the advertising. Consumers listen to other consumers. They experience the product. If the mix does not work, it does not work. Your ‘brief’ or ‘five-year plan’ will not convince them. I am shocked when I hear marketing folks, rhetorically or for real, questioning the need for advertising. The question walks on two legs—first, ‘is advertising effective?’ If so, ‘how do we know that more creatively appealing advertising is more effective?’ Sacrilege! If marketers discard and trash creativity and content-led communication, what hope do we have of anyone else carrying the torch? Here is my take—data, digital experience, optimisation, etc, all of this can be done by non-marketers. A program can do better in some cases. It is as if analysts, ad-tech specialists, and data scientists are falling from the sky for free. A lot of the froth is about what’s ‘being trended’. The symptoms are being shown in place of the diagnosis. The reason why advertising is ineffective is because there are poor advertisements air. And there are poor advertisements on air because creative ideas are rare and clients who appreciate them are rarer still. Second, the lack of creativity is covered up by some abracadabra about an “idea whose time has come” and “purpose”, and so on. Craft is rendered meaningless. If you make chicken biryani you need chicken. Making it with soya bean nuggets is not about the craft of cooking biryani. This truism is quite clearly and rampantly violated. The pipe does not quench the thirst, the water does. The guitar will not play itself. The road will not move the car. This emphasis on technical preparedness and digital advantage whilst ignoring creative appeal and craft is suicidal. Remember marketing-advertising has no need to be in this world. It is an act of creative smarts to begin with. We owe our existence to the primacy of ideas. We have data, machines, methods, metrics, and measurements galore. What we do not have enough is talented creativity. Let us put ideas at the heart of the marketing profession or a data-driven robotic program will generate your ‘acceptably creative’ obituary! https://www.forbesindia.com/blog/storyboard/the-neglect-of-creativity-is-the-data-driven-marketers-biggest-mistake/

The world is not moved forward by the establishment. Those in-charge naturally get invested in the status quo. But organic growth is insufficient to fire the furnace of the global economy. Moreover, technical progress also spurs economic progress. Therefore, it is the ‘disruptors’ and ‘challengers’ who create value by initiating—often disruptive—change. Netflix, Uber, Tesla, Apple, Airbnb, and Amazon are all examples of what category disruptors can achieve. They all qualify as challengers even though they eventually became leaders. [siteorigin_widget class=”SiteOrigin_Widget_Image_Widget”][/siteorigin_widget] The most acknowledged guru on the subject, Adam Morgan (author of ‘Eating the Big Fish’) defines challenger brands based on their size and relative share. But in a world where the enablers of disruption—technology, market access, and capital—are superabundant, the definitional criteria itself deserves a relook. Firstly, disruption is not a chance outcome. It is the intended fruit. For a challenger, the seed of disruption must exist in the business plan. From the start, the challenger must go against the norm, vigorously and intelligently. It must address a massive barrier and bridge a gap. In an earlier era, Avis could position itself as “We Try Harder.” The tagline was penned by DDB’s Paula Green in 1962 to explain why anyone would choose the runner-up brand over Hertz, the leader. The world has changed since then. Trying harder is merely a competitive effort, not a challenger-style disruption. The very real reason for a brand to exist should be its challenge. All business ideas ought to further the disruption mission. Unless the change cuts through, a challenger will not gain salience in a world of almost infinite choice. Secondly, successful challengers set new codes, conventions, and designs into place. The most relevant and fruitful way to challenge is to reset expectations of brand-consumer interactions. Therefore, technology-enabled startups have flourished as challenger brands. Amazon rewrote the rules of shopping. Google radically altered the mode for accessing information. Apple made sublime design commercially viable for itself yet affordable for the customer. Airbnb made folks think about boarding and lodging like never before. In each case, someone imagined differently and made it a brand promise and a business plan. Only rarely do we see a business retooling every part of the disruption spectrum. Southwest Airlines is an example. It serviced second-tier markets, used only a single type of plane, spiked up servicing efficiencies, ensured the 30-minute turnaround, and cut services to the bare minimum getting to a price point never witnessed before. This brought in passengers who had previously not thought of flying as an option. That’s classic disruption. Southwest was led by maverick Herb Kelleher, who built a culture of positively outrageous service to further differentiate the experience beyond price. I was on their LA/ Burbank – Phoenix /San Jose flights almost every month during 2001-2004 and I have experienced it first-hand. Lastly, I would like to mention the importance of ambition. Challengers take a bigger view of the pie. They have a fluid boundary to their business footprint. They welcome iterative change in the “always-on” mode. Amazon is also in the logistics business. Apple could soon build a car. When big companies with established brands move into new categories, they would do well to learn from challenger brands. They need to zoom into how they are serving consumers and creating value. Talk of purpose and saving the world is very welcome but consumers pay for need fulfillment. Consider Tesla, one of disruption theory’s lead examples at present. Their disruptive model will be eventually copied and bested. Established brands at affordable prices will become catch up competitors. Will they embrace innovative new business models and new sales channels? How will Tesla decide its core values to drive their business and keep leading in this space? How will it inspire and guide innovation through the next 50 years?   This begs the question that if challenging is now much easier why don’t more of the challengers survive and thrive? This can only be answered by remembering that the first-mover advantage is a huge inherent advantage. Early successes set the standard. And everyone has access to example, advice, and acquisition opportunities. A challenger will fail if the incumbent has clarity of thinking, is vigilant about solving customer issues, and reaches consumers through every means possible. This is why user experience is the crack through which challengers see light. The one who can invert the customer engagement process creates a winning impact.  If it can make a substantially better experience scalable, it starts to win. This is not about incremental gains or dabblers who tinker with pop tech. This is about laying “all in” bets on customer experience and making technology work in ways never done before. Challenger brands must ruthlessly cut any idea that doesn’t drive their core identity and commit fully to those that do. Thinking fast but acting thoughtfully, is the true challenge for any challenger. https://www.forbesindia.com/blog/business-strategy/what-does-it-take-for-a-challenger-to-become-a-disruptor/

Last month, I happened to meet two super successful entrepreneurs who are regarded to be sure shot ‘soonicorns’. But to my surprise, both did not have a narrative that would explain how they were serving their customers uniquely and how the business model was geared to eventually turn a profit. They spoke gushingly of change and disruption but it wasn’t a narrative of inspired storytelling when it came to why it was going to last. I was not clear about their business story—its plot, protagonists and intended conclusion. They seemed unconcerned about ‘what next?’, and how to make it a real, paying business model. ‘The party is on’ is how one of them put it. [siteorigin_widget class=”SiteOrigin_Widget_Image_Widget”][/siteorigin_widget] I think it is important for them to think differently about the importance of their purpose and its narrative. A business can be read by its story better than its balance sheet. This story has many parts. Firstly, the ‘storybuilding’, which comes closest to an unfolding of a business’ strategy. Next, the ‘storydoing’ reveals its operational excellence. Finally, ‘storytelling’ tells you what transpired and what the future holds for both internal stakeholders and the external world. A good story creates links, inspires more action and builds brand value. A hero’s quest lies at the heart of every enduring myth. Brands need stories or else each business is merely in the labelled commodity game. Not having a brand story is a missed opportunity. A story creates value for customers, employees and investors. One can get started in no time. There are known basic story plots that run over and over again, be it in fiction or in business. They are the same in their generalities but may differ infinitely in the specifics. What are the acknowledged commonalities among great business stories? Simplicity – All these stories are lucid and impactful but they are delivered without complication or distraction. Credibility – The stories are real and for all to see. The reality test is embraced not avoided. The plan is not speculative and hence the story is not fictional. Scalability – The results become a game-changer. The impact is deep and horizontally extensive. The Before-After shift is the reason for the story to be told with pride. There is something about storytelling that levitates beyond mere facts. This is not just my hunch, there is a neurological basis for this. Our brains are hardwired to make sense of elaborate stories. Paul Zak, the father of neuro-management, identified a neurochemical called oxytocin, in the hypothalamus of the human brain. When a person listens to a powerful story, the brain releases oxytocin. It causes engagement and powers post-narrative behaviours. The brain, in response to stress, also releases cortisol which is an enabler in focusing. When inspired and gratified, the brain’s reward mechanism is wired to release dopamine. The human brain is a monkey brain. We are, neurologically speaking, shaved and better dressed primates. To lose focus is our natural state. We daydream, flit from an impulse to impulse and our mind wanders when awake. Why do great stories get more creative license? In his book ‘Tell to Win’, author Peter Guber claims that critical filtering gets diminished when greater identification is achieved. In other words, we believe stories that gratify us emotionally. We also remember such stories. This is why, historically, most gratifying facts are encoded as stories. That has been the story of civilisation. Those who command storytelling wield enormous power. In business, the evidence is the gratification and the lure of success is hope.  Every investor is a recipient of a story and great wealth is the happy ending. How to tell a better story? Speak of the steadfast vision – the ‘what’ can vary but not the ‘why’. Serve the audience – Explain how your product or service will serve their needs and what they will have to pay in return. Give facts – Fat-free makes one lose weight. ‘Fact free’ loses audiences. The story unfolds with the plan – The story must be able to clarify who are your customers and competitors? What will it take in time, money, personnel, environmental variables to make this story come to life? Position the story as a sneak preview, not a prayer – The narrative must be confident. Why will your products and services work and why will your vision transform into reality? Successful businesses deserve great stories—immersive, relatable, tangible, memorable, and yes, emotional. https://www.forbesindia.com/blog/business-strategy/unicorn-or-mule-why-brand-stories-will-determine-your-startups-future/

It is natural to emphasise the relevance of business strategy and to question it at the same time, given the turbulent and unpredictable world we live in. Brands soar and fall with a thud. How can their strategies be credited or blamed? It can be convincingly claimed that there isn’t enough strategy, and that corporate management and managers of capital don’t think sufficiently far ahead and aren’t clear enough about what they are trying to achieve. We do entertain an unrealistic expectation of what strategy can do. In business, it is seen that circumstances turn out to be quite different from those that we anticipate; Both the market and competitors do things that we do not expect. General Eisenhower had said that plans are unimportant, but planning is essential.   [siteorigin_widget class=”SiteOrigin_Widget_Image_Widget”][/siteorigin_widget] Why is a marketing strategy relevant?Strategy development is a way of thinking. The process of thinking through and working out possibilities enables you to cope with situations as they arise and to recognise that things are different. But if you stick rigidly to a plan, you will get into trouble because, inevitably, things will turn out to be unpredictable? Managers confuse their goal with strategy. It is a common blunder. Plans hope to result into intended objectives but they must be governed by the starting problems. Brand strategy must look at conditions as they exist, not as we perceive them. It sounds so obvious and simple but, believe me, this is the hardest thing to do in real-world situations. We are forever subjective and rarely objective. What has changed?The world is a lot more unpredictable today and therefore we need a different approach to strategising. The early attempts at strategic thinking emerged from a “control” mindset. The emphasis was to ensure that goals were met. The presumption was that there could be a workable reliance on core strengths that could be deployed. Today’s marketing strategy has to be responsive, fluid, and adaptive. One of the most important features of implementing strategy in the ‘digital era’ is that failure is found out very quickly. Success emerges from failure. Now, a strategy is no guarantor against failure. Instead, strategy is an adaptive process that merely factors in the failure, as it occurs. There are two seemingly contradictory trends at work. First is the emergence of real-time, always-on, all things-in-type information dashboard. The second is the recognition that strategy is an art and technical advantages flatten out eventually. How to manage the implications and avoid ‘bad’ strategy?Richard Rumelt describes bad strategy as something that emerges from specific misconceptions and leadership dysfunctions. He lists four typical signs: 1) Fluff: Gibberish masquerading as strategic concepts or arguments 2) Failure to face the challenge: Fails to recognise or define the challenge 3) Mistaking goals for strategy: Just statements of desire rather than plans for overcoming obstacles 4) Bad strategic objectives: Impracticable or non-specific A strategy must make it abundantly clear to all in the organisation where to play and how to win. It must make its case based on facts. After all, that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Strategy is about priority-based choices between viable competing options. There is an easy test. The opposite of your strategy must be a strategy. Delivering great service is not a strategy. Choosing to operate in the mass segment is. You can’t have a strategy of providing bad service but you could choose to play in the premium segment instead. Without a lasting, growing, evolving competitive advantage, there can be no winning strategy. Michael Porter entered management history with his treatise on ‘The Five Competitive Forces that Shape Strategy’. His core thinking is true today as well. To base your approach on leveraging competitive advantage is indeed the first principle. The era of platform-based digital businesses is all about sense, spirit, and style. In cricket, the strategies adopted in T20 vs Test cricket are different. The former is about scoring maximum runs whereas the latter is all about safeguarding your wickets. Last but not the least, in today’s world, making strategy is not an elitist pursuit done in ivory towers. Strategy requires an appreciation of reality and hence cannot be centered exclusively in the headquarters. The last mile at the customer-facing end is a great place to explore and learn. Companies that do not continue to experiment and those that don’t embrace failure, eventually get in a desperate position. Traditionally, the creation of strategy was more feted than its execution. The smart ones only made the plans. That is simply not okay anymore. The two must be intertwined in a deliberate process connected by a feedback loop. Today, speed and urgency are key. Initiative is the catalyst for faster results from the intended strategy whereas wait and watch is a road to oblivion. Here’s the paradox: Action is most needed in times of rapid change and uncertainty, but that’s when it is most difficult. Beset with faux knowledge, bureaucracy, and theoretical constructs, brand strategy is destroying value and eroding brand capital. This is bad for business. Let’s hope for a revival of sensible brand strategy. https://www.forbesindia.com/blog/marketing-and-branding/changing-with-the-times-marketing-strategy-as-a-misnomer/

We, humans, are the only species that “thinks about thinking”. Douglas Hofstadter said, “It is an inherent property of intelligence that it can jump out of the task which it is performing, and survey what it has done”. To my mind, this observation should also be our hope and prayer. Nuclear war, environmental disaster, religious fanaticism, species loss and much more are all the doing of the ‘intelligent man’. But here, as a marketer and business leader, I am going to discuss human creative intelligence in the context of the relentless advance of Artificial Intelligence (AI). In particular, I want to zoom into Emotional Quotient (EQ) and the appreciation of subjectivity where humans have an advantage over machines. [siteorigin_widget class=”SiteOrigin_Widget_Image_Widget”][/siteorigin_widget] What we call ‘intelligence’ is an activity of the brain. The outcome of that activity forms our ‘mind’ about things. Even when we sleep, our intelligence is awake and our mind is being formed. In this context, we must pay attention to the concept of duality as the first level of multivariate analysis. A hallmark of intelligence is the willingness to change one’s mind. Humans can think in terms of ranges, options and spectral possibilities. Machines are only about specificity and exactness. Computing doesn’t entertain opinion. Yet, calculation is merely one aspect of our mental ability. It has been exaggerated in our education system. This kind of logic-based intelligence is quite self-conscious. We are assessed for deductive ability. We are tutored to think and know but not trained to ‘think about thinking’ or ‘know about not knowing’. We are barely taught any self-awareness. Emotional Intelligence is neglected. We are coached in analytical hindsight and acquire a punter’s foresight based on the computation of odds. No one educates us on esteem, gratification, empathy, or seduction. We learn these things by ourselves. The irony is that machines have beaten us on all those aspects that we acquire via structured learning and tutoring. It is in the emotional, subjective and artistic areas that mankind holds the advantage. The Intelligence Quotient (IQ) is an overused, overvalued metric. The modern survivalist definition of intelligence is ‘what you use when you don’t know what to do.’ Here tested IQ is of little consequence. Mankind cannot be numerically queued up from Ape to GeniusWhat is the measure of genius? IQ cannot measure the moves of the ballerina, the deal-sniffing acumen of a salesman, the musical sense of a virtuoso performer or the visual intelligence of a sculptor. Man has the ability to mentally accommodate subjective as well as objective processes. We are comfortable with the unpredictable and the irrational. That is precious ability. One can see the mockery we have made of progress. Man pursued machine-like logical, numerical, precision. Then the machines went far ahead. In the 1940s, Alan Matheson Turing predicted that humans would have conversations with computers by the year 2000. But AI today lacks artifice. It can’t tell convenient lies, cannot be polite for politeness’s sake and so on. In comparison, human brains are kaleidoscopes. We turn the configuration over and over again. Every sense, smell, emotion changes our brain. Computers do not unconsciously change. The machine world is not designed for ambiguity. When we say one is brain dead, brainless or brainwashed, we refer to this ability to determine, to synthesize. In these cases, we are not referring to the brain as the organ or apparatus but to the associative ability. Computers can think but they cannot winkGödel’s theorem stated, “no system can explain itself; no machine can understand its own working”. What is called the mind cannot be fully seen in the mind’s eye,t We are mindful and mindless in equal measure. Those who are single-minded are not necessarily simple-minded. Many genius minds have been absent-minded. This is the genius of human intelligence which a machine cannot replicate. Lastly, much of human intelligence is unconscious and subconscious. Active processing is the latter part of the domino chain. Much of inspiration is unsought. Plato said, “When the gentler part the soul slumbers and the control of reason is withdrawn, the wild within us becomes rampant.” Man will always drive the machine. But to ensure it is not the other way around, promote the curious, tolerate subjectivity and reward the witty There is more to the brain than AI. https://www.forbesindia.com/blog/technology/why-the-brain-will-always-win-in-the-battle-against-ai/

For many marketers, data is just a four-letter word. They believe that continuous analysis and the demand for a scientific basis for marketing action will squeeze and kill art and inspiration. In all parts of the ‘brand-consumer interaction’, a massive change has occurred. Thanks to data and what is done with it, the focus has changed from “how does it work?” to “how does it feel?” Concurrently, technology has made great strides in the understanding of the human brain. There is much greater evidence-based confirmation of how conscious processing and subconscious emotions play a role in our decision making. We are more knowledgeable about how the brain perceives the outside world. We can map how memory works. Nevertheless, it is still inconclusive. No universal rules have been framed. Nothing is definitively predictable. The human mind appears messy and irrational. It operates via abstraction and is reliant on an awareness that lurks mostly below conscious levels. [siteorigin_widget class=”SiteOrigin_Widget_Image_Widget”][/siteorigin_widget] But this should not deter marketers. In fact, it should encourage us to know that there are deep, hidden and dormant aspects to our mental processes where science can meet art. We should recognise that brand building, advertising, marketing research and product innovation are all partners in an enterprise where outcomes are probabilistic. The brain is unconscious, lazy, emotionally charged and irrational. Creativity can use this and even exploit it. Science can monitor its effectiveness and discover more such opportunities. In 2016, the word ‘post-truth’ was included in the Oxford English dictionary, a comment on the lure of semi-fact or fiction. Search marketing has turned consumer interaction into a ‘surveillance first’ operation. But in combination with social media, it has also inaugurated an era of transparency. More information is available on everything than ever before. Still, the presumption that with this abundant information consumers will make more rational decisions and opt for more considered purchasing is simply not true. Rationality requires the hard work of thinking. It demands being above one’s biases. This is an exceedingly difficult thing for humans to do. Consumers have become ‘cognitive misers’ with this very overload of information. Consumers don’t merely buy brands, they ‘buy into brands‘. In 1999, Robert Heath pioneered work on ‘Low Involvement Processing’. A purchase decision is the outcome of interactions with deeply ingrained brand associations rather than a rational processing of active, top-of-the-mind information. The big idea was that our relatively passive processing is nonetheless powerful. Of course, the more serious the investment the more one forces oneself to research, compare and consider the purchase. Categories such as real estate, automotive, travel and high-end consumer electronics are obvious examples. Nevertheless, even here, it is a matter of degrees. Brands that engage emotionally are more likely to succeed simply because of the limited amounts of active attention consumers pay to brand messages. The role of emotion will need to flow from consumer facing content to the entire gamut of activities right down to the final sale. This must now include online engagement and e-commerce as well. The line separating brand experience and transactional experience has been erased. Every interaction with a brand is remembered for its emotive value and not because of the guaranteed transactional outcomes. How can we infuse every touchpoint with emotion? Begin by seeing emotion in every experience—store design, feel and finish, in-store environment including lighting, music, fragrance, brand events, community gatherings, personnel etc. All of these create emotional impact leading to “how it felt?” The world of brands and commerce is being organised around the mobile phone, as the gateway to the internet. It is amongst the most personal and emotionally significant devices we own and every waking hour, our identity is shaped by it. There is no option. Brands have to deal with the rise of ubiquitous and invisible technology and we have to infuse every touchpoint with emotion. Technology has moved beyond the sheer experience of novelty. It is now an immersion and not an interface. Technology will become invisible and therefore, the entire language of interaction with technology is naturally on the cusp of a transformation. I will end by quoting Clarke’s law which states that “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”.  Abracadabra, the future is here! https://www.forbesindia.com/blog/technology/the-future-of-brand-connection-is-magical-heres-why/

“If you are not embarrassed by the first version of your product, you’ve launched too late.” -Reid Hoffman The First mover advantage is the idea that the pioneer in a new market has an edge over equally qualified late comers. It posits that the initiator brand gains a commercial advantage leading to higher revenues and profits over time. The more complex and fragmented the market, the more such an advantage becomes valuable. Have you ever asked why all clocks exhibit 12 hours on the dial? Why do the hands move to the right? This was not inevitable. Why not a 24-hour face with the hands moving to the left? At Florence’s Cathedral, you can see such a clock. It was made in 1442 A.D. At that time, the convention was open. Shortly after, clockmakers standardized on our ‘12-hour –move right clockwise’ convention. [siteorigin_widget class=”SiteOrigin_Widget_Image_Widget”][/siteorigin_widget] The first mover locks in the standards and makes the market behave in ways that favour it. Significant payoffs exist when one can create barriers to entry. The brand creates its own market, gets consumer traction and has a significant lead time for innovations. Some well-known first movers, such as Gillette in men’s grooming, Kleenex in tissue, Xerox in copiers, Coca-Cola in soft drinks and Hoover in vacuum cleaners unmistakably demonstrate both the value and longevity of early success. In India, Royal Enfield is a unique example of longevity, constant growth and brand mystique and appeal that has grown from its first mover days. Early entry gives cost advantages associated with operating, manufacturing and selling. One can tie up key source materials, distribution channels and own consumer mindshare. In diverse international markets, skills and resources are better developed. Unilever was a pioneer in India with its ‘Indian-isation’ of management. Its strengths in distribution and its portfolio of brands in each category allowed it to build dominant positions. He who arrives early owns the battle field and waits for the later challenger. Such an early entrenched brand can make investments to pre-empt the aggression of later arrivals. Brands are sociological phenomena. Early players get more social esteem, reputation and longer term loyalty But being first, by itself, isn’t a guarantee of success. It may even involve much greater risk than being an early follower. Netscape, the first mover, lost its market share to Microsoft’s Internet Explorer within a few years in the 1990s to be in turn challenged by Chrome. Brands get a foothold, grow to leadership positions and still lose out – Rasna, HMT, Cibaca, Dalda, Godrej Storwel are category building examples from India. Myspace came before Facebook. Google search was preceded by AltaVista and Lycos. It is true for traditional verticals and new segments as much. ‘Being first’ matters but ‘being better’ matters more. The underlying factors that make or break an advantage are the speed of technology evolution and the pace of market evolution. The quicker and more disruptive the advancement of technology, less possible it is for the entrenched player to control it. Even with large R&D budgets the incumbents often lose out. It is seen that new entrants tend to drive technological progress. Their ability to make an entry rides on new technological advantage. The wider the departure from existing products or categories, the more uncertain the future. We have seen this in the case of cellular telephony, automobiles, memory, semiconductor devices, video projection technologies and other markets. Storied brands such as Nokia, Hindustan Motors Ambassador, Premier Padmini, Dyonara, BPL, Onida are amongst examples of wasted advantage in India. A gradual evolution in both technology and markets is the best case scenario for first movers. If the pioneering brand becomes a reference point within the category and transforms into a verb, it is a sure shot sign of advantage. So, ‘to Hoover’, ‘To Uber’, ‘To Xerox’, ‘To Google’ shows advantage ingrained into activity. A gradual pace of change in technology makes it hard for later entrants to differentiate their products from those of the first entrant. Yet, Blackberry, Kodak and Polaroid, despite the advantages, lost out in new product development. They didn’t have the wherewithal to lead technological change or make enticing, recurrent product changeovers What matters to the bottom line is scale, cost advantage, margin accretive innovation and pricing elasticity. We know that global giants like IBM, HP, and Compaq could not resist the cost advantage of mass model players such as Dell or the rise of Japanese, Taiwanese and Chinese competitors in the personal computer industry. Famously, Microsoft and Intel decided to make the Windows 95 Operating system and the Intel x86 microprocessor mutually compatible. With this “Wintel Advantage”, they were unbeatable. To conclude, the first mover advantage is a matter of attitude more than chronology. It should be seen as a game theory construct and in a broader framework of brand oligopoly. Being a first-mover is only worth it if the risks are outweighed by the rewards. Every day in business is about the survival of the fittest. https://www.forbesindia.com/blog/business-strategy/being-first-matters-but-being-better-matters-more/