Minding your own business

Jeff Jarvis argues in his book What Would Google Do? that Detroit should learn the power of collaboration and open design from Google. While there are challenges in implementing a cost-effective business model around collaborative automobile design and production, perceiving the concept with an end-of-the-pipeline mentality doesn't help either.

CarZen provides an excellent recommendation service that suggests cars that suit a buyer's needs. I was reminded of the innovative supply chain model that Dell pioneered during its initial days of glory -- letting customers make their own computer, and assembling the personalized computer through JIT inventory management. Detroit may not be eager to merge CarZen's recommendation service with Dell's personalized assembly line to make cars that serve unique customer needs.

Nevertheless, it is important that auto makers understand the business they're in. As Rishad Tobaccowala of ad giant Publicis points out, auto makers ironically are not in the business of making automobiles, but in the business of Navigation and Entertainment. Given that people need to navigate from point A to point B, and spend considerable time doing so, it should be a no-brainer that adding value in the process of fulfilling these needs should help differentiate and reap profits.

When McDonald's founder Ray Kroc asked a group of B-School graduates "What business do you think I'm in?", the graduates thought that he was just fooling around. Ray surprised them claiming that he was not in the business of flipping hamburgers, but in the business of real estate. He went on to detail that the focus of his business plan was to sell hamburger franchises, and that the location of those franchises was key to their success. We know that McDonald's doesn't make the best burgers in the world, nor does it provide the best dining experience. Yet, it takes some pondering to determine the actual business that a player is in. Recognition of the basics can be a profound experience, and can indeed be transformed into a black swan with the right execution strategies.

The idea of a personalized car may be romantic, to say the least, and may not be Detroit's silver bullet even in this era of personalization. Meeting energy efficiency goals stipulated through regulations screams "end-of-the-pipe" and may come at a cost [if not approached holistically]. It needs to be said that leaders identify themselves not by following the fads of the day, but by identifying their purpose for existence and by changing the way the world operates, not due to an urge to do so, but simply by following function.

2.0

Well, the election is over, but it hasn't sunk in yet. For somebody who had been glued to every form of news about the primaries and the general election, a week-long hangover is to be expected. This is the first election I've followed this closely, and I must say, it has been educating and entertaining.

Many have had their chances to second-guess Obama's victory. Here are some of the common theories:

1. This was a vote against Bush, but not for Obama
2. This was a vote for the Democrat, but not necessarily for Obama
3. It's the economy, stupid
4. Obama ran a good campaign: clear vision, good execution and help from the media

As Jack Welch points out, vision and execution are both vital to success. We've learned much about the execution part of it, and I don't intend to bore you with more of the same [no pun intended!].

What about vision? Jack Welch stops with "Change" in his analysis. It didn't take too long for Hillary and the other front-runners to figure that out. There have been several contests [some in politics, some in business], in which somebody's message had been stolen by a competitor fair and square. Why couldn't anyone steal Obama's message this time? Is it because of his eloquence, or the use of the internet [layman for online fund-raising, social networking, recurring donations], or simply because all of his opponents made mistakes, while "somehow" he did not?

You may have guessed why this post is titled 2.0. I've seen some striking similarities in strategy between Web 2.0 and the Obama campaign, and that I assess is at the root of this victory.

Reach out to the entire web, to the edges and not just the center, to the long tail and not just the head.

Needless to say, the Obama campaign "had" to be innovative in fund raising, as it was open and shut that Hillary would charm the Democratic base easily. They definitely made some smart choices then, internet-based fund raising was one of those. The 50-state strategy also seemed like a tactic aimed at winning the primary. Little did the pundits know then, about the impact that strategy would have on Nov 4, 2008. In traditional red states such as Indiana and Virginia, Obama won by winning the blue electoral colleges and by losing the red electoral colleges by smaller margins, only because the campaign reached out not just to the head, but to the long tail as well.

Network effects from user contributions are the key to market dominance in the Web 2.0 era.

With social networking, this campaign broke new ground in enabling volunteers and supporters to organize among themselves.

So how did the Obama campaign figure this out? Did Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes and Google CEO Eric Schmidt give them the inside scoop on Everything 2.0? A campaign of this magnitude cannot be built to last and succeed, based on fragile tactics and strategies that suit the moment.

The Obama campaign introduced a new product called "Change" almost a couple of years ago. Choosing what to sell was the easy part, but how to sell is what Obama excelled in. While customers sensed the need for the product, several brands emerged during the primary season. The demand increased and so did the competition. Jack Welch is right, in that he says that the Obama campaign had a clear sense of vision. However, their vision was "to build a participative inclusive coalition". This vision and the campaign's ability to execute per this vision with strategies such as the 50-state campaign, social networking and internet based fund raising have been key to their success.

Perhaps, Barack Obama won this election because he was once a community organizer. After all, there are no coincidences.