On Boeing and Airbus

20070613
(answer to the question "Boeing & Airbus what are the similarity & differences ? Where are they heading actually ?")

Airbus' hubris mirrors that of Boeing in the 90s. Both are heading for big disapointments if they keep believing they live in a duopoly.

It won't take long for China to come rockin' and rollin'. And the beauty of it is that China offers yet another kind of public subsidies : neither the US DoD model, nor guarantee from national governments, but the massive demand of private companies controlled by the board of China Inc.

My favorite / least favorite brands

20070612
(answer to the question "What is your favorite brand?" by Interbrand)

Funny. All my top of mind brands are media (France Football, The Economist, BBC) Then I realize there isn't a brand I could put in such a list as yours. I respect many companies and naturally I do have favorites (ie models, authors, designers, cars...), but I'm more interested in the content than the shell, and I don't feel affection for a brand or a label. Even if it does happen (hard to avoid), I don't like the idea of having something writen (nor some logo) on me. I reckon it may have something to do with my being an author. As Roy Disney brilliantly reminded us, brand is for cattle. Being loyal to a brand is being as dumb as a cow. You are loyal to people or things you trust.

PS : be careful : picking faves could be dangerous when working for Interbrand !

20070612
(answer to the question "What is your least favorite brand?" by Interbrand)

That one I can answer a little bit more easily.

Since we're on LinkedIn, I'll start with a shared connection : Hummer.

My hall of shame : Microsoft, Halliburton, Bud, Wal-Mart, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Billy Graham, The Sun (a UK toilet paper brand passing for a newspaper brand), World Wrestling Entertainment, The New York Yankees, The Carlyle Group and the Discovery Institute.

At the risk of infuriating a few contacts, I'll put a slice of Dunkin' Donuts, Taco Bell, A&W Root Beer, Jif et al on top of it (barf bag, anyone ?)

On sustainable arrested development

20070606
(answer to the question "Sustainable development : illusion or action")

- Most companies are still at the "feel good PR" stage.

- A significant number of them are getting serious, and the past few years brought significant tools (ie labels, environmental tools...), beyond general awareness and a consensus from the public on key issues. Economists are embracing ecology as a key topic, ecology becomes a key issue in economics (see recent reports on the costs of global warming). Beyond the buzz, there are now high expectations for action (from all circles, social, economical and political).

- The swiftest ones have already understood a lot of money could be made, and great competitive advantages taken.

On releasing press releases

20070606
(answer to the question "Is there still a point to creating press releases?" with all those blogging and social networking tools)

More than ever.

Anything can happen to the multitude of formal and informal messages you (willingly or not) send to the market ; you want to keep a trustable source for yourself as well as for outsiders :

• - press releases are a good exercise for your company, to formulate your position and put your action into words, take some distance with your daily routine, look back in the mirror anytime needed (paper and webpages tend to end up in dustbins)...
• - medias, bloggers, outsiders want to know your position on key issues, know the official line at any given moment. A company that communicates respects the market, and the market respects a company that disciplines itself.

To me, you have a duty to keep creating press releases. And to study innovative ways of optimizing their diffusion (which leads us to the blogs and social networks thing : there will necessarily be foes out there, and that's a good reason to make new friends).

On flying comfort

20070607
(answer to a question / survey on flight comfort - which of the 5 following items are your 2 priorities ? leg room, armrest size, seat width, tray table size, reclines a lot)

1. Leg Room (you don't want to scream each time the guy in front of you reclines)

2. Reclines a lot (you want to rest your back during a long trip without crunching the guy behind you)

Why the 1+2 combo :
- if your legs and back can't take a good rest, neither can you
- I'm not particularily tall (rather avg), but for the price of the ticket, I expect to enjoy my seventh inning / hour stretch without leaving my seat.
- you are neither trapped when seated next to a window, nor feeling your neighbor crawl over you when seated next to a corridor, which solves most guy-seated-next-to-you issues (except for supersized Golden Arches lovers, size matters more vertically than horizontally)

On the innovation process

20070530

(answer to the question "What are the essential elements of the innovation process?" - the creative and synthetizing part)

From experience (as a strategist as well as as an author), I know it takes at least two sets of qualities : at the concept / idea level, and at the communication level. I've always enjoyed the conceptual part, and I have a lot of fun writing. Being an author is a permanent state and writing just an action, but people judge you by your output.

Ideally, there should be a visual / mental "click" from your audience / readers, but it is not always easy to translate your great vision the most efficient way. Pedagogy / communicability is key : your vision should be simple to understand and explain. Some doors can remain open if needed (you cannot embrace every dimensions, solve all questions), but everyone should be able to see what's at stake, share a common ground with all others. Besides, there is certainly no such thing as a "one size fits all" process for innovation, nor a universal way of synthetizing.

Actually, each consulting firm has a method, some are relevant in certain contexts, counterproductive in others. For example, the BCG can be help you bulldoze small bumps on the road and have a big corporation embrace a clear strategy, but when it comes to innovation, you want to protect diversity and be careful not to destroy valuable germs. The devil is in the details but a great value lies in theses details too.

At the end of the day, it is all about making a vision of a piece of knowledge useful, more valuable than it is by itself.

My favorite NGO / charity

200705
(answer to the question "What is your favorite NPO / NGO / Charity? & Why is it your favorite?")

Wal-Mart.
By far the most successful organization when it comes to make third world countries converge with US social standards. Working the other way round proved quite disruptive but efficient.

;)

Is brand loyalty dead ?

200705
(answer to the question "Is brand loyalty dead?")

As Roy E. Disney smartly reminded us, brands are for cattle. If you are loyal to a brand, you are as dumb as a cow. You are loyal to a company that respects something somehow. You know the company wants to make business with you but you don't want to end up as a medium rare steak. I take what I need, you take what is fair. No one loses. You are loyal to a fair partner. Basically, P&G and their likes are still XXth Century foxes in the hen house. This model can't last long.

On SWOT analysis

200705
(answer to a question on SWOT analysis templates)

I never used any template for a SWOT. I cannot open up my mind in closed walls. You must have a comprehensive view of your environment, but always a fresh one. You must always challenge it, leveraging on the expertise around you. Do not see your company and your environment as you see it but as your coopetitors would do. And don't see competitors as competitors ; see beyond your market to spot new coopetitors.

Rule number one : have fun. You know you cannot cover every dimension nor every angle so relax and embrace uncertainties. If you are looking for a competitive edge, think ahead.

20070606
(answer to another question on SWOT analysis in general)

SWOT is only a frame, and the value doesn't lie in the frame. Your kid's drawing may look terrific, you probably wouldn't get as much money from it as if you sold your Basquiat over eBay. Besides, SWOT should be open and dynamic, evolutive. It is a (big) picture, but you should be able to see the movement behind, get the notion of what's missing.

Saving the US automobile industry

200705
(answer to the question "What can be done to save the U.S. Automobile Industry?")

Stop thinking as the US Automobile Industry.

Start thinking as mobility service providers in a new, open, competitive but respectful and responsible environment.

On innovation and branding agencies

200704
(answer to the question "What are the most important qualities managers want in an innovation and branding agency?")

I prefer smaller structures for reactivity and true innovation - provided the casting and methology don't suck, of course. A big name will do if the aim of the game is just for the manager to have his own concept sold to his own hierarchy.

International reach helps for branding : you don't want to waste time on verifications, and you certainly don't want to end up like another case study (ie Alcatel means "killer" in Arabic, Sega "to masturbate" in Italian).

About great technos and great business models

200703
(answer to the question "Does a great business model foster great technology, or does a great technology foster great business models ?")

I've survived a couple of start-ups in the innovation field and I know two things : great technology can be a curse, and failing to deliver a death warrant. If I get your question right, you have both techno geniuses and marketing whizz kids, and you are wondering what a brainy manager would do to get the most value out of this explosive combo.

First : lock patents, don't waste your gems and don't let them go. They shouldn't feel like they are locked in a monolithic joint playing a "us vs them" game. You foster innovative approaches in general and as a general you must take decisions. If time to market is key, keep a playing ground for research - give your techies time to work on pet projects in exchange for the delivery of the dreadful quick-and-dirty gizmo your salesforce requires. Market the smart upgrades while selling the monster. It may work even if you are not Microsoft.

Actually, that's the essence of Google part II (growing into a powerhouse beyond the initial innovation) : the new bricks added to the edifice are either smart tools fresh from the lab or quick and dirty me-too products launched basically to fill the blanks, the time for competitive upgrades to be completed. You may not be able to stretch your staff that far, but at least mentioning Google could help stretch the smile on your investors' face for a while.

Define: intelligence vs information

=> Intelligence is the capacity to apprehend (ie your environment, other people, situations...), understand and give sense beyond what you see, feel, touch, smell, or hear.

• NB : intelligence is not something absolute. you can be very intelligent in certain situations and dumb in others. There is no such thing as one kind of intelligence and IQ is an heresy : you cannot sum it up in one dimension.

=> an information is a message an entity (ie person, network, group) receives from other entities or from its environment (ie it's raining).

• NB : the format of the information is very important. Information can be perceived differently by the emitter, the receiver or a third party, it can be altered during the transfer and edited anytime. For instance, this chair is blue but the color blind person will get another information, I say something, you hear something else.

=> Information can be made intelligible for a specific target. I would call that intelligent outformation.

Many people consider the ability to memorize a lot of information as a sign of intelligence - the most clever people I know make complex things look simple - simplicity is not always stupidity but often the key to intelligibility, apprehensibility.

My job used to be providing intelligence for decision makers and convincing them to see beyond the information they asked for. I would industrialize information as much as I could, always keeping in mind the necessity to often change the formats and adapt to a disruptive environment. Managers who stick to a few indicators tend to miss major changes in the market. Pedagogy was also useful to promote human networking within the organization. Intelligence was considered as information gathering in an hostile environment, strategic intelligence became a way of peacefully moving a few steps ahead of competition.

The public is so much overwhelmed by information it cannot see intelligence when it comes across it. Internet is a kingdom of information / disinformation where the public can easily be fooled. There is a realization of that and the emergence of a need for genuine intelligence. Unfortunately, prevails the one who advertizes the best, not necessarily the most relevant.

200703
(answer to the question "intelligence vs information")

Crowdsourcing - innovation accelerator or fad ?

Crowdsourcing is smarter than it appears and must be handled with intelligence. To me, its pros and cons can easily be visualized : think about a coffee break with scores of people in the same room. Some are from your company, friends or relatives, some just joined from the street below. Their only thing in common is to be interested in the conversation taking place. You will get interesting points of views from experts and ignorants, insiders and outsiders, inconvenient truths and convenient hoaxes... a 3D / 360 vision of the topic. Often uncensored (praise informal gatherings and Coffee Break Allmighty). You can be overwhelmed by it quite easily.

Tools will help you sort the mess, but don't rely totally on them either. Beyond your own judgement, trust that of people and experts you trust. Don't rely fully on crowdsourcing, too. That said, crowdsourcing has already become a very valuable strategic intelligence technique, as well as a wonderful marketing tool (to sell all kinds of things, buzz and disinformation included).

200703
(answer to the question "Crowdsourcing: a massive global innovation accelerator or another hype that will fade away?")

Gadgets - a man thing ?

200603
(answer to the question "gadgets - is it a man thing ?")

Gadgets don't think. They may be smart but have no emotions. To me, they are a mirror reflecting the power the owner feels / wants to feel on "his / her" environment.

I guess the key is the owner has total control in his relationship with the gadget. It actually becomes "his / her" gadget once "he / she" fully masters, full throttle. People who love gadgets may have either a big surplus or a big deficit in their relationship with fellow humans. They may need a gadget as a certificate. I don't know...

How would I know ? I'm not much into gadgets, but I'm not much of a social animal either... I'm afraid I may be too much in love with my wife, doctor.

Define: partnership

Partnership is a mode of relationship that goes beyond the standard / natural mode usually observed in a given environment.

1) ie in business : beyond sell / buy
2) ie at the personal level : beyond love / hatred, family / friendship
3) ie in the wilderness : beyond symbiosis / parasitism / predation

Binding or not, a partnership is decided by all parties and requires their involvement and agreement.
=> Partnership truly requires intelligence, an understanding of one's environment beyond the natural reach. In a successful partnership, both parties fully understand each other's environment, which generaly includes a new point of view on their selves.

200703
(answer to the question "Partnership - what is it ?")

Define: disruptive innovation

A disruptive innovation brings an evident solution to a key unsolved question. And a truly disruptive innovation does the same for a key unsolved question that had never been asked before.

Simplicity often comes with a paradigm shift, a total reformulation of the initial question, a complete change of plane ; you have to think out of the box, where old problems offer new solutions, where old constraints open new horizons...

A disruptive innovation changes the very way we consider our environment.

20070612
(answer to the question "What does disruptive innovation mean to you?")

Define: WOM, Buzz, Viral

. WOM is the descriptive term for one specific medium.
. Buzz focuses on the impact on the environment and generally certain groups of people.
. Viral is more about time, reach and depth, how things spread.

20050721
(answer to a question for a thesis on Viral Marketing for Souki.com - differences between WOM, buzz and viral ?)