I agree in spirit with both replies. All companies are in the business of minimizing risk. Even small companies try to minimize risk. Risk is inherent in any strategy a company chooses to engage in.
But risk-averse does not mean without risk. A monopoly can continue its practices, but they run the risk of being knocked off by a more innovative competitor. A monopoly still has to work to stay ahead of those on its heels. A company is in the game whether they like it or not, so they have to play the game, monopolies included. Although it is true that companies don't like to shake things up, at least until a crisis or three occurs.
However, if there is a way to change the rules, like say, gain government protection then a company's business model shifts tremendously. It would seem like a market would have to be pretty screwed up to get deregulated, but it does happen, just ask your favorite big airline. However, with the Government barrier to entry, Monopolies have a different success threshold than other compainies. They just have to keep the pleasure of their existence slightly higher than the pain it would take to deregulate them. Which is a far easier trick, because palm greasing also happens to garner a lot of rose-colored glasses, for the policymakers.
Competition does not necessarily mean less profits for existing monopolies. In fact, it could result in more profit by pushing technologies that give consumers more options, which could justify higher rates, ad corp finance nauseum.
Corps like higher profits, but they like not having to work hard even more. So instead standing up for fair and pesky competition, they just have their lobbyists keep matters under control by buying Congresspeople.
Remember, elected officials don't represent their constituencies anymore, they represent their bankers.
A) Impossible, there is always someone in the room who is, or at least thinks he/she is, more knowledgable than the person at the front of the room. Many write off speakers immediately because they are close minded and pre-reject somebody with a different point of view.
B) Maybe companies would just like people to hear about their products and its features. If people in the booths knowing NOTHING about a subject is such a gripe, where are all the smart people at who should be proud of the technologies they develop? Why don't they man these booths? Accepted behavior is reinforced behavior, shame on us for accepting it.
C) Show me someone who does not try to "save their own asses" aka act in their own self-interest and I'll show you an imaginary friend. The language seems to indict everybody. Not every exec is a overindulged-criminal, just most. (seriously wanted to use a more colorful metaphor, but I'll behave)
D) The authors claim the situation is new and growing in our markets, but the idea itself is one of the pillars of civilization. People formed communities for survival, then communities began to work towards prosperity. Then communities formed within communities to amass power and rule, sometimes for good and sometimes evil which is irrelevant, it happened. Many things evolve, not all markets are at the same level of maturity, not all areas have strong and knowlegeable communities. But all are subject to progress, they must adapt. Know what happens to those that don't? They die.
-It's not the fall that kills you, it's the sudden stop.
The top down paradigm is beginning to shift. In "The Future of Competition", Prahalad and Ramaswamy point out that even with our world of infinite choice, customers still are not sastified. They claim the problem is the top down paradigm. The solution from their point of view is getting the customer involved in the value-creation process. When the customer is actively involved in some aspect of the product, the payoff for the customer in satisfaction is far greater.
There is a range of services avaiable now that allow the the customer to get involved. Ranging from Dell's online site to Opensource development projects. Dell's site enpowers customers to consult with their geek friends on parts and then pick those parts (or at least a semi-reasonable approximation...maybe) and have the box shipped to thier homes. On the other end is Opensource where the consumer can become heavily involved in the value-creation process up to the point of becoming the producer. Essentialy, "If you can contribute or do better by all means go for it."
The Point: Communities of consumers provide strength in numbers for information collection/dissemination and voice. There is power when a customer knows what they want. When approaching a firm who says, "Maybe you want this", the customer can confidently say, "No, I know what I want" or "I'll get back to you in a minute" (then whips out communicator and consults with said community).
Doc Searls's article is an example of a customer wanting to expand a communication channel between producer and consumer in a way that would allow the consumer to add to the value creation process.
While top down will always be around, there are changes continuing to occur that go beyond "the firm spoon-feeding the customer" setup.
From Geek getting an MBA...I'm sorry (Ugh, I'm unclean, I need a bath)
Slashdot Mirror
I agree in spirit with both replies. All companies are in the business of minimizing risk. Even small companies try to minimize risk. Risk is inherent in any strategy a company chooses to engage in.
But risk-averse does not mean without risk. A monopoly can continue its practices, but they run the risk of being knocked off by a more innovative competitor. A monopoly still has to work to stay ahead of those on its heels. A company is in the game whether they like it or not, so they have to play the game, monopolies included. Although it is true that companies don't like to shake things up, at least until a crisis or three occurs.
However, if there is a way to change the rules, like say, gain government protection then a company's business model shifts tremendously. It would seem like a market would have to be pretty screwed up to get deregulated, but it does happen, just ask your favorite big airline. However, with the Government barrier to entry, Monopolies have a different success threshold than other compainies. They just have to keep the pleasure of their existence slightly higher than the pain it would take to deregulate them. Which is a far easier trick, because palm greasing also happens to garner a lot of rose-colored glasses, for the policymakers.
Competition does not necessarily mean less profits for existing monopolies. In fact, it could result in more profit by pushing technologies that give consumers more options, which could justify higher rates, ad corp finance nauseum.
Corps like higher profits, but they like not having to work hard even more. So instead standing up for fair and pesky competition, they just have their lobbyists keep matters under control by buying Congresspeople.
Remember, elected officials don't represent their constituencies anymore, they represent their bankers.
Ha,
A) Impossible, there is always someone in the room who is, or at least thinks he/she is, more knowledgable than the person at the front of the room. Many write off speakers immediately because they are close minded and pre-reject somebody with a different point of view.
B) Maybe companies would just like people to hear about their products and its features. If people in the booths knowing NOTHING about a subject is such a gripe, where are all the smart people at who should be proud of the technologies they develop? Why don't they man these booths? Accepted behavior is reinforced behavior, shame on us for accepting it.
C) Show me someone who does not try to "save their own asses" aka act in their own self-interest and I'll show you an imaginary friend. The language seems to indict everybody. Not every exec is a overindulged-criminal, just most. (seriously wanted to use a more colorful metaphor, but I'll behave)
D) The authors claim the situation is new and growing in our markets, but the idea itself is one of the pillars of civilization. People formed communities for survival, then communities began to work towards prosperity. Then communities formed within communities to amass power and rule, sometimes for good and sometimes evil which is irrelevant, it happened. Many things evolve, not all markets are at the same level of maturity, not all areas have strong and knowlegeable communities. But all are subject to progress, they must adapt. Know what happens to those that don't? They die.
-It's not the fall that kills you, it's the sudden stop.
The top down paradigm is beginning to shift. In "The Future of Competition", Prahalad and Ramaswamy point out that even with our world of infinite choice, customers still are not sastified. They claim the problem is the top down paradigm. The solution from their point of view is getting the customer involved in the value-creation process. When the customer is actively involved in some aspect of the product, the payoff for the customer in satisfaction is far greater.
There is a range of services avaiable now that allow the the customer to get involved. Ranging from Dell's online site to Opensource development projects. Dell's site enpowers customers to consult with their geek friends on parts and then pick those parts (or at least a semi-reasonable approximation...maybe) and have the box shipped to thier homes. On the other end is Opensource where the consumer can become heavily involved in the value-creation process up to the point of becoming the producer. Essentialy, "If you can contribute or do better by all means go for it."
The Point: Communities of consumers provide strength in numbers for information collection/dissemination and voice. There is power when a customer knows what they want. When approaching a firm who says, "Maybe you want this", the customer can confidently say, "No, I know what I want" or "I'll get back to you in a minute" (then whips out communicator and consults with said community).
Doc Searls's article is an example of a customer wanting to expand a communication channel between producer and consumer in a way that would allow the consumer to add to the value creation process.
While top down will always be around, there are changes continuing to occur that go beyond "the firm spoon-feeding the customer" setup.
From Geek getting an MBA...I'm sorry (Ugh, I'm unclean, I need a bath)