Note: I’m going to try something new here. In the past, I’ve spent what I think was a disproportionate amount of time researching and preparing blog posts. Which is not to say that either of those things are bad, but in my case, I’m just not sure my posts where any better for it. With that in mind, I want to start tossing out ideas that maybe aren’t totally worked out, but that I’d rather work on publicly than just sit on for months. So with that I present: Proto-ideas! Basically half-baked concepts presented as absolute fact. Here’s one I’ve been kicking around the last couple months:
In the physical world, brand competition can be, and has been, essentially symmetrical. Even as new competitors come into the market, there are certain practical restrictions – legal, social and physical that they’re all bound by. Competing brands have similar opportunities based on similar goals, laws, availability of scarce resources, development of distribution chains, and access to communication channels. This symmetry helps to create a stasis that keeps established brands on top prevents upstarts from posing immediate risk to established institutions.
In the digital space though, almost none of this applies. Resources are not scarce to begin with, and become more widely available everyday. Practically speaking, there is no such thing as a distribution chain, and where there is something that might resemble one, the iPhone app store for example, access to it has nothing to do with the size of your organization. Because on the web individuals have access to the same level of technologies as any organization, and because they can distribute it just as effectively, it means that brands are now not just competing with other brands, but with individuals whose goals are not only not the same as a brand, but possibly in direct conflict. The competitive landscape is flat with established brands fighting what amounts to a global asymmetrical battle.
What this means is that when people lament the ability of something like Twitter to create a traditional business model, or even a business model at all; or when they mock Twitters inability to make a profit, I think they might be missing a more important point: Regardless of whether or not Twitter turns a profit, the fact is: Twitter doesn’t have to. Well okay – Twitter has sucked down enough other peoples money – they might actually have to turn a profit, but whether or not Twitter itself survives, the fact is: a couple people can, in their free time, disrupt the way people all over the world communicate. And even more importantly, this can and will happen over and over, and likely with increasing frequency.
I guess my point is this: if one wants an image of the competitive landscape of the web, picture an infinite amount of competitors, with unlimited resources and desire, and no constraints, financially, legally, or ethically. This is the baseline of competition online. As Chris Anderson points out in his book Free, technology is basically free, so the question of whether or not you can monetize something online is, for many people, largely moot. At the same time though, the projects individuals are making can and are disrupting all aspects of business. The people inventing the Twitters, Facebooks, and Napsters of the world are not faced with the same constraints that the Nikes, or Cokes, or Starbucks are. While the later is constrained with all the organizational trappings of being a business, the former can doing something because it’s “fun” while still having the same access to the same audience.
As the web has become more ubiquitous, the role it plays in our lives has only increased. As it increases, the ability of any brand to functionally, and successfully exist within it has also become critical. At the same, because technology allows for more and more individuals to operate essentially as brands, the future will favor those organizations who understand the web as more than a technology, but as a complex and dynamic and ultimately asymmetrical social construct.
Knowledge based companies that rely on controlling the flow of information (read: Fox News) will suffer from this asymmetrical [business] warfare.
I’m thinking about what you’re writing here, Justin, and wondering where to go with it. This is the kind of stuff that ‘thought leaders’ in the industry have been talking about for months, if not years, and it seems to sink in so slowly with people outside of the industry.
I suppose that it is necessary to keep talking about listening, connecting, and engaging so that it keeps getting hammered home, until it becomes conventional wisdom. Talking about openness and the free trade of ideas until people stop acting out of fear is necessary.
The question this sparks for me is how do we drive it home for people instead of talking about it amongst ourselves? Are the social gatherings and blogs of the New Media Elite the place to continue having these discussions, or do we storm the proverbial gates of the Establishment?
I’d say while Twitter is not itself profitable, it has/does stimulate economic growth.
Good points Cory. The irony for me is that I think the ‘industry’ is largely responsible for maintaining the status quo on this. I find very few people within agencies willing to ask “what is the actual value of this client online?” which I think is critical to competing effectively.
While clearly I think the asymmetry of this competition represents a new challenge for established brands, I also feel these organizations still can have a lot offer. A hurdle for them though will be understanding, or often re-understanding, what they stand for in society. For example – is Nike about shoes, or sports? Shoes is transactional, but if they’re about sports, well then what does that mean in the online space. In the case of Nike, it may mean more things like Nike+, which I think is a great example of a brand knowing what they’re about, and how to create a manifestation of that online.
To your point though, I totally agree. Until agencies understand the web in a more profound way, I don’t see how they can relay that information to their clients. Thus far, they seem unwilling to do so.
Hi: I came to this page through a tweet by Cory Huff above. Very interesting post, but I was a bit thrown by the word ‘symmetry’. I’d call it a level playing field, makes the concept more accessible to people used to hearing that term in relation to the market.
Jeremy – agreed, this is what makes these things so fascinating to me: At anytime, a handful of people can come through, disrupt everything, force everyone to respond, and, as you point out, change the economy, all without so much as a business plan. I can’t think of another time in history when this sort of power was in the hands of so many. I love it.
Hey Natalie – thanks for the feedback. You make an interesting point, and like I said, this is still and idea I don’t feel like I have fully resolved even in my own head.
Any way – let me ask you this: does the phrase “level playing field” connote fairness? The reason I ask is that when I chose ‘symmetry’ it was because I feel that most businesses are operate in the same place socially. What I mean is, they try to make money by effectively distributing scarce goods. So while the market place may not be fair, or level, traditional businesses are symmetrical in organization and relationship to their customers.
That said, I could also be splitting hairs, or just plain wrong. Thoughts?
uberVU - social comments // Nov 13, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by aDogNamedPants: I wrote this: http://bit.ly/3hGyPf. I also proofed, so sorry about that….
Tweets that mention Proto-idea: Asymmetrical Brand Landscape -- Topsy.com // Nov 13, 2009 at 2:44 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Tony -Frosty- Welch and Justin Spohn, . said: [...]
Hi Justin:
Sorry to take so long to respond. To me, ‘level playing field’ has never equalled fairness in my mind, although that could be inferred from what I do feel the term denotes: equal access to resources. Which is interesting when flipped to fit your model of distributing resources rather than accessing them. The term ‘symmetry’ grates on me in this context; but it’s perfectly understandable if my term does the same to you.
More on asymmetry and the web // Jul 26, 2010 at 10:28 am
[...] I’ve written a couple other times about the asymmetrical nature of the web, but what I find interesting about this is that it show a possible direction for the relationship between traditional, physical organizations and the more abstract digital ones. [...]