Category: Creative Destruction

Technology Platforms Will Create Decades of Gales of Creative Destruction

(p. A11) For traditional businesses, economies of scale are the key to competitive advantage: Larger firms have lower average costs. In the digital economy, network effects matter most. In “Matchmakers” (Harvard Business Review, 260 pages, $35), David S. Evans (a consultant) and Richard Schmalensee (a professor of management) highlight two particular forms.
Direct network effects occur when additional users make a service more valuable for everyone. If one’s colleagues are all on, say, LinkedIn, it will be hard for another professional network to exert a strong appeal. Without the critical mass of LinkedIn, the alternative will have less utility even if its features are better. Indirect network effects arise from positive feedback loops between opposing sides of a market. The value of Rightmove, for instance, the leading online real-estate site in Britain, comes from a matching function: Since each home is unique, buyers prefer the site with the most properties, and real-estate agents favor the site with the most buyers. This virtuous cycle magnifies Rightmove’s advantage even though participants on each side of the market compete with one another: More buyers increase competition for the same homes, and agents compete for buyers.
. . .
“Matchmakers” is . . . measured and analytical . . . . The authors fairly conclude that, while the telegraph was “a far more important multisided platform” than anything produced so far by the Internet, platforms are “behind the gales of creative destruction that . . . will sweep industries for decades to come.”

For the full review, see:

JEREMY G. PHILIPS. “Why Facebook’s Imitators Failed; If one’s coworkers are all on the same platform, any alternative will have less utility–even if its features are better.” The Wall Street Journal (Thurs., May 19, 2016): A11.
(Note: the ellipsis between paragraphs, and the first two in the final quoted paragraph, are added; the third ellipsis in the final paragraph is in the original.)
(Note: the online version of the review has the date May 18, 2016.)

The book under review, is:
Evans, David S., and Richard Schmalensee. Matchmakers: The New Economics of Multisided Platforms. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press, 2016.

Creative Destruction of Polaroid by Digital Photography

(p. A17) There aren’t many 3-year-olds who can take credit for inspiring a revolution in the way millions of people view the world. According to a legend that begins Peter Buse’s welcome history of the Polaroid company, “The Camera Does the Rest,” it was engineer Edwin Land’s daughter, Jennifer, who asked one evening in 1943 why it took so long to view the photographs that the family had shot while on vacation in Santa Fe, N.M. Land set out on a walk to ponder that question and, so the story goes, returned six hours later with an answer that would transform the hidebound practice of photography: the instant snapshot.
. . .
“In 1974 alone there were about 1 billion Polaroid images made, and by 1976 . . . 15 billion in total,” the author writes, “and this before the real explosion in Polaroid photography in the late 1970s and early 1980s.” The party might have gone on forever had it not been for the same type of creative destruction that Polaroid itself had stirred up in the 1940s–this time brought about by the digital revolution.
By the time the company joined that revolution in the 1990s, it was too late. Their digital products were inferior to those being turned out by competing companies. Polaroid had always done well selling cameras, but the real money was in the film, the demand for which was falling precipitately. In July 1997, the company’s stock price was $60.51. Four years later, as the company spiraled toward bankruptcy, it was $0.49. The author writes that Polaroid joined the “analog scrap heap” that included “vinyl turntables and the Sony Walkman.”​

For the full review, see:
PATRICK COOKE. “BOOKSHELF; The Original Instagram; Purists grumbled that Polaroids were ephemeral, but Ansel Adams created some of his most enduring photographs using the camera.” The Wall Street Journal (Tues., May 17, 2016): A17.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the review has the date May 16, 2016.)

The book under review, is:
Buse, Peter. The Camera Does the Rest: How Polaroid Changed Photography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015.

German Car Makers in No Rush to Catch Up to Tesla

(p. A7) When Elon Musk rolled out the new Tesla Model X at the end of September [2015], some grumbled that the Silicon Valley car maker’s all-electric luxury crossover was coming to market two years too late. It depends on who you ask. The Big Three German auto makers only wish they could catch the tail of Mr. Musk’s rocket.
I’m not talking about units sold, though Tesla’s target of 50,000 cars in 2015 is a respectable chunk of the global luxury-sedan market. But Tesla has taken more hide off German prestige and sense of technical primacy. I mean, the Model X was just rubbing their noses in it with those “falcon” doors, right? In executive interviews at the Frankfurt Auto Show any praise of Tesla was guaranteed to land on the table like a paternity suit.
. . .
I wonder if any traditional auto maker whose existence does not hang in the balance can ever have enough belly for the EV long game?
Even if the Germans had market-bound EVs in mass quantities, there is the concurrent problem of charging. As the estimable John Voelcker of Green Car Reports notes, the luxury incumbents have no plans to challenge Tesla on charging availability. Tesla has hundreds of charging stations in the U.S. and Europe and plans for hundreds more–all free to owners.
. . .
I am struck by the lag time. This isn’t about profit and loss but industry leadership. The Germans are headed where Tesla already is and, taking Frankfurt as the measure, they are in no great hurry to get there.

For the full commentary, see:
Dan Neil. “RUMBLE SEAT; How Tesla Leaves its Rivals Playing Catch Up.” The Wall Street Journal (Sat., Oct. 10, 2015): D11.
(Note: ellipses, and bracketed year, added.)
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date Oct. 8, 2015.)

Standard Oil Money Funded Homage to Oz

(p. A1) Vandals are slowly destroying the Land of Oz, a small private theme park nestled atop Beech Mountain, N.C., built on land bought years ago with money from a Standard Oil fortune. Thieves and urban explorers have carted off polka-dot mushrooms, a pair of cement lions and, most hurtfully, pieces of the golden-hued path that runs through the park.
“It’s magical,” says Vicky Conley of Morganton, N.C., who took her son to Oz last year when he was six. “People should leave it alone.”
. . .
(p. A8) In 1966, Mr. Leidy’s grandfather Page Hufty–an insurance pioneer and real-estate developer in Palm Beach, Fla.–bought land on Beech Mountain. His wife, Frances Archbold Hufty, was the granddaughter of John D. Archbold, a titan of the Gilded Age and John D. Rockefeller’s right-hand man at Standard Oil, which was dissolved by the government in 1911.
Mr. Hufty leased some of the land to other developers, who wanted a summer theme park to complement their ski resort.
The Land of Oz opened in 1970, amid much fanfare about the 70th anniversary of L. Frank Baum’s classic book. Debbie Reynolds stopped by. So did Ray Bolger, who played the Scarecrow in the 1939 movie. At least 300,000 people visited the first year, says Neva Specht, a historian and a dean at the College of Arts and Sciences at Appalachian State University.
By the second year, she says, it was one of the biggest attractions in the Southeast, and it graced the cover of “Southern Living” magazine.
. . .
But the park quickly became more of a white elephant than a Merry Old Land. Attendance dropped, as families were lured away by splashier attractions like Disney World, which opened the following year in Orlando, Fla. The developers went bankrupt, and Mr. Leidy’s grandparents eventually gained ownership.
. . .
Mr. Leidy installed fences topped with barbed wire, but thieves cut through. Security cameras didn’t seem to deter anyone either. Mr. Leidy is now hiring guards.
. . .
Mr. Leidy says he doesn’t know what lies in store over the rainbow, but thinks his grandparents would be proud.
“Until we figure out a long-term plan here,” he says, “it’s important to me to protect it.”

For the full story, see:
CHRISTINA REXRODE. “Goodbye Yellow Brick Road? Even a Wizard Can’t Save Oz.” The Wall Street Journal (Fri., Sept. 18, 2015): A1 & A8.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date Sept. 17, 2016, and has the title “Goodbye Yellow Brick Road? Even a Wizard Can’t Save Oz From Vandals.”)

Plastic Buttons Replaced Seashell Buttons, but Technology Can Be Restored

In What Technology Wants, Kevin Kelly has made the point that most obsolete technologies remain available to satisfy nostalgia, or for more practical uses, if the need arises. Below is another example.

(p. C27) In a tan outbuilding overlooking a pond in northeastern Connecticut, equipment for turning seashells into buttons has lain fallow for nearly eight decades. The building’s owner, Mark Masinda, a retired university administrator, is working to transform the site into a tourist attraction.

In the early 1900s, his grandfather William Masinda, a Czech immigrant, supervised a dozen button makers in the building, which is on a rural road in Willington. They cut, drilled and polished bits of shells imported from Africa and Australia to make “ocean pearl buttons” with two or four holes. The area’s half-dozen button factories supplemented the incomes of families struggling to farm on rocky terrain.
The Masinda operation closed in 1938, as plastic flooded the market. “The equipment he had just couldn’t make the transition,” Mr. Masinda said.
. . .
Mr. Masinda is planning to reactivate the equipment and open the site for tours by . . . spring [2016].

For the full story, see:
EVE M. KAHN. “Antiques; Restoring a Button Factory.” The New York Times (Thurs., DEC. 3, 2015): C27.
(Note: ellipses, and bracketed year, added.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date DEC. 3, 2015, and has the title “Antiques; Yale Buys Collection of Scattered Medieval Pages; Restoring a Button Factory.”)

The Kelly book mentioned above, is:
Kelly, Kevin. What Technology Wants. New York: Viking Adult, 2010.

Tesla Model 3 Excites Venturesome Consumers

America’s venturesome consumers are hungry for products exciting enough to justify enthusiasm. They are desperate for evidence that the future can continue to look bright.

(p. B2) DETROIT — Despite a steady stream of new models from a number of automakers, sales this year of electric and hybrid vehicles have failed to keep pace with the growth in the overall American market.
But if the market for electrified cars was slumbering, Tesla Motors woke it up with a jolt Thursday [March 31, 2016] with the unveiling of its coming Model 3 lineup of affordable, zero-emission vehicles.
Given that electric and hybrid vehicles account for only about 2 percent of last year’s record-setting sales in the United States, the extraordinary reaction to Tesla’s first mass-market model was a vivid demonstration of the potential demand in the segment.
“It shows that the future of electric vehicles is not necessarily bleak,” said Alec Gutierrez, an analyst with the research firm Kelley Blue Book. “Maybe we’ve been waiting for the right products that resonate with consumers.”
Tesla said on Friday that it had booked reservations — at $1,000 each — from nearly 200,000 people for the first Model 3 sedans, which will not be available until next year.
With a starting price of $35,000 and a battery range of 215 miles, the new Tesla is a big leap in the company’s expansion beyond expensive luxury models.
“The final step in the master plan is a mass-market, affordable car,” Elon Musk, Tesla’s chief executive, said at the lavish introduction of the Model 3 held at the company’s design studios in Hawthorne, Calif.

For the full story, see:
BILL VLASIC “In Clamor for new Tesla, Signs of an Electric Future.” The New York Times (Sat., APRIL 2, 2016): B2.
(Note: bracketed date added.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date APRIL 1, 2016, and has the title “Tesla’s New Model 3 Jump-Starts Demand for Electric Cars.”)

A&P, Once Dominant Grocery Chain, Files for Bankruptcy Again

(p. B1) A&P, a former titan of the grocery industry, has filed for bankruptcy protection for the second time in five years and is trying to sell more than 100 of its stores.
The company, which owns Pathmark, Food Emporium and other food retailers clustered primarily in New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, said on Sunday that a restructuring in 2010 had failed to put it on secure enough financial footing to keep up with a shifting grocery landscape.
A&P, less commonly referred to as the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, has lost market share to competing stores like ShopRite and Stop & Shop Supermarket Company, as well Walmart and Target, retail giants that have spent the last few years expanding their offerings in the grocery aisles. A&P has debts of about $2.3 billion, court filings show, and assets of $1.6 billion.
. . .
Founded in 1859 as a mail-order tea business, A&P evolved into a discount food retailer that operated 16,000 stores by the mid-1930s and remained a dominant player in America’s grocery landscape into the second half of the century.
“It was truly a powerhouse,” said Marc Levinson, an independent historian and the author of “The Great A&P and the Struggle for Small Business in America.” “In those days, independent grocers were every bit as afraid of A&P as mom-and-pop retailers are today of Walmart.”
In 1912, A&P opened its first discount store in Jersey City. The idea of a retailer focused on low-cost groceries was novel at the time, and a reputation for rock-bottom prices helped the company flourish.
“They were opening stores literally more than one a day during World War I,” Mr. Levinson said.

For the full story, see:
RACHEL ABRAMS. “A&P Files for Bankruptcy and Aims to Sell 120 Stores.” The New York Times (Tues., JULY 21, 2015): B3.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date JULY 20, 2015.)

Levinson’s excellent book on the economic history of A&P, mentioned above, is:
Levinson, Marc. The Great A&P and the Struggle for Small Business in America. New York: Hill and Wang, 2011.

“Minds Feel More Crimped, Fear More Pervasive, Possibility More Limited”

Maybe to lead happy or satisfying lives, we need more adventure, or more projects (hard and important ones) to commit ourselves to?

(p. 19) Freedom is still out there. We all have our idea of it, the deferred dream. Your psyche builds layers of protection around your most vulnerable traits, which may be closely linked to that precious essence in which freedom resides. Freedom is inseparable from risk.

. . .
I don’t know if the world is freer than a half-century ago. On paper, it is. The totalitarian Soviet Imperium is gone. The generals who bossed Latin America are gone, generally. Asia has unshackled itself and claims this century as its own. Media has opened out, gone social.
Yet minds feel more crimped, fear more pervasive, possibility more limited, adventure more choreographed, politics more stale, economics more skewed, pressure more crushing, escape more elusive.
. . .
Which brings me to Finnegan’s wonderful book, a kind of hymn to freedom and passion. Freedom is inside you. It’s the thing that cannot be denied. For Finnegan, that’s surfing and writing. “How could you know your limits unless you tested them?” he asks — a question as true before the ferocious energy of the wave as before the infinite possibilities of the written form.

For the full commentary, see:
Cohen, Roger. “Ways to Be Free.” The New York Times (Sat., JAN. 23, 2016): A19.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date JAN. 21, 2016.)

The Finnegan book praised in the passage quoted above, is:
Finnegan, William. Barbarian Days: A Surfing Life. New York: Penguin Press, 2015.

Innovators Need Time for Tedious Tasks

(p. 3) Innovation isn’t all about eureka moments. In fact, the road to creative breakthroughs is paved with mundane, workaday tasks. That’s the message of a recent study that might as well be titled “In Praise of Tedium.”
In the study, researchers sought to examine how extended periods of free time affect innovation. To do this, they analyzed activity on Kickstarter, the crowdfunding website, in nearly 6,000 American cities.
. . .
Over a period of about nine months, the researchers found a sharp increase in the number of new projects posted during the first few days of school break periods. The spike, they suggest, is tied to people having more time to perform the administrative aspects of Kickstarter projects — working on a manufacturing plan, say, or setting up a rewards schedule. While people may be using some stretches of free time to nurture those much lauded light bulb moments, the process of innovation also appears to require time to carry out execution-oriented tasks that are not particularly creative but still necessary to transform an idea into a product, the study indicates.

For the full story, see:
PHYLLIS KORKKI. “Applied Science; Good Ideas Need Time for Tedious Legwork.” The New York Times, SundayBusiness Section (Sun., AUG. 16, 2015): 3.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date AUG. 15, 2015, and has the title “Applied Science; Looking for a Breakthrough? Study Says to Make Time for Tedium.”)

The academic paper summarized in the passages quoted above, is:
Agrawal, Ajay, Christian Catalini, and Avi Goldfarb. “Slack Time and Innovation.” Rotman School of Management Working Paper #2599004, April 25, 2015.

Only a Founder Has the Moral Authority to Shake Up a Company

(p. B1) SAN FRANCISCO — Shortly after Twitter’s board of directors began its search for a new chief executive in June [2015], it said it would only accept someone willing to commit to the job full time. It was a not-so-subtle message to Twitter’s co-founder and interim boss, Jack Dorsey, that he would have to give up his job running Square, a mobile payments start-up, if he wanted to run Twitter on a permanent basis.
On Monday [Oct. 5, 2015], the eight-member board reversed itself, announcing that it had decided to allow Mr. Dorsey, its chairman, to head both companies after all.
. . .
(p. B8) This is Mr. Dorsey’s second go-round as Twitter’s chief executive.
Evan Williams, a board member and co-founder of Twitter who was instrumental in firing him in 2008, noted that the board considered many candidates before settling on Mr. Dorsey.
“I honestly didn’t think we’d land on Jack when we started unless he could step away from Square,” Mr. Williams wrote in a post on Medium, the social media site he now runs. “But ultimately, we decided it was worth it.”
In the end, Mr. Dorsey made a compelling case that he had matured and grown as a leader and that only a founder would have the moral authority to truly shake up a company that has been struggling to attract new users and compete for advertising dollars.

For the full story, see:
VINDU GOEL and MIKE ISAAC. “Delegating, Dorsey Will Lead Twitter and Square.” The New York Times (Tues., OCT. 6, 2015): B1 & B8.
(Note: ellipsis, and bracketed dates, added.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date OCT. 5, 2015, and has the title “Delegating, Jack Dorsey Will Lead Twitter and Square.”)

Founder Title Gives Dorsey “the Leeway to Make Significant Changes”

(p. B1) Twitter Inc. is handing the chief executive reins back to Jack Dorsey, entrusting its founding architect to reassure investors and revive the social-media service’s sagging user growth.
. . .
(p. B10) Company insiders say there was nothing interim about the way Mr. Dorsey carried himself since July 1, when Dick Costolo stepped down as CEO. He initiated debates about fundamental product features, including Twitter’s trademark 140-character limit per tweet. He frequently sends companywide emails late at night, which include news stories that highlight Twitter’s value in the world. These messages and his close involvement have shifted the tone and boosted morale, according to these people.
. . .
His reputation as a product visionary will be tested as he tackles his priority: to figure out how to make Twitter easy enough to use by anyone. More than his product ideas, however, Mr. Currie endorsed Mr. Dorsey’s leadership skills as the reason the board decided to bring him back on a permanent basis.
In the eyes of employees and users, the founder title gives him the leeway to make significant changes that weren’t afforded by Mr. Costolo.

For the full story, see:

YOREE KOH. “Dorsey Is CEO of Twitter Once Again.” The Wall Street Journal (Tues., Oct. 6, 2015): B1 & B10.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the article has the date Oct. 5, 2015, and has the title “Twitter Names Co-Founder Jack Dorsey CEO.”)