Archive for the ‘Product Management’ Category


Well, They did it again.
Dove makes me write posts. Everytime I see their new communication campaigns, they make think, they challenge my intuition and rise my admiration.

This time is about men…

I understand after Dove brand expansion success it makes sense to enter adjacent categories to skincare such as haircare, body care … I understand… but MEN?

Even if you think it could be a good business opportunity, how would you enter a male category coming from such strong female perspective?

Well, look at this Dove for men Superbowl ad and judge

Well, what do you think? Moved?

I believe Dove has been able to transfer in a very smart way the Dove Brand purpose to the men’s world…Chapeau!

However, do you think this brand purpose is relevant in the male grooming category ( being shaving the quintessential )?

How can you enter the dominated/super competitive shaving category?

Probably Dove has been guessing about it… in order to build relevance they may look for some unserved functional attributes and show expertise and authority in this matter…

Let me show a couple of ads

Pure Functional, explaining the shaving as a ritual

and more insightful…. shaving is a ritual from fathers to sons. Shaving is more than a shave…Beautiful.

Think beyond your razor they say!!!! ( I wonder what is Gillette thinking now…right?)

…and  a great insight about  the meaning of shaving:  reassuring and make men feel confident

What do you think ?

What would you have done?

I would like to make this post more interactive. Please tell me your point of view!

Answer yes/no in this (anonymous) survey to this question Do you think is appropriate for Dove to expand to male care?

I will share the results with you all next week. Promise

I am intriguing to know your opinion, thanks!

Have a nice week



Written on February 12, 2015 by Claire Bastien in B2B Marketing, Product Management, Sales Management

The other day I decided to change my private health insurance. I called my bank to ask what insurance packages they offer, as I also have my home insurance with them. They offered a special promotion package with good general health coverage and additional dental insurance. I purchased this package at a monthly fee 30% lower than my current health insurance.

Companies bundle products and services into a single offer at a discounted price. Product bundling is offering several products for sale as one combined product. It is a common feature in firms like telecommunications, financial services, health care, and information industries. In this case the aim of bundling is to increase sales because it stimulates impulse buying, where attractively packaged offers trigger customers to buy more.


Purchasing various insurances, for example your home and auto insurance from the same carrier, is potentially a very lucrative decision. It is not uncommon to offer multi-policy discounts, or the discounts offered to customers are bundling two or more types of coverage. By far, the most compelling advantage for consumers in purchasing an insurance package is the potential discount, in my case 30%

From the consumer’s perspective, of course, there can be disadvantages with bundling. You have to be sure that there is a strong economic advantage and that the quality of coverage is the same, or better, when bundling, as opposed to separating your policies.

Product bundling is also a pricing strategy that reduces price competition by making it hard to figure the price of the components. In an airline and hotel package it is difficult to determine the price of the room for example.


Can grouping products together into a single-price bundle modify the perception of value? In fact, the bundle may be seen as worth not just less than the sum of its parts, but less than the individual product! –

Bundling also works in the B2B sector

B2B purchases are different from B2C and typically result from a consultative sales process that runs over an extended period. Effective negotiations require the ability to exchange options.
Bundling may involve pre-configuring product and/or service options into standardized B2B solutions at a lower price. As pre-discounting won’t stop clients from negotiating the price, this practice may decrease the margin.

When a vendor structurally eliminates the ability to sell options by excessively bundling everything into high-end solutions, this can cause severe revenue and margin erosion. For instance, assume a competitor offers a solution perceived as good-enough at a lower price.

However, bundling is a good tactic that can be used for protecting other brands and to maintain the tariff price of these products. The seller has to decide which form of bundling to pursue and how to price the bundle and the individual products.

This is very often used in the pharmaceutical sector and in the secondary care, hospital segment, in order to protect the price of innovative drugs until the end of patent protection by bundling with a portfolio of generic drugs.

Bundling B2B product and/or service options can be effective, but should be based on competitive utility analysis and address the cross-functional consequences from sales to manufacturing. It requires anticipating and measuring the P&L effects, versus competitive strategies, perceived market value, and the negotiation effects.

It is becoming increasingly common that B2B organizations offer a complex combination of products and associated technical and consultancy services. These offerings or bundling of individual products or services have to be combined into a coherent “bundle” or “value proposition”.


Imagine you want to create a movie. The only requirement is that its story should be based on a specific book. The good news are that this book contains a great variety of amazing stories: The creation of a world by a rather interventionist almighty god, successful and disastrous adventures of whole nations under the guidance of inspiring leaders, wise prophets who fight against unfaithful monarchs, and an old man saving animals from a great rainfall.

Now, why would anyone pick the last story? Well, it may have a great brand name: Noah!

YouTube Preview Image

Why is this important? If you ask people about important elements of movies they would enjoy watching, you will get the answer “a good story” very frequently, but the answer “a story that I am familiar with” very rarely, if ever. Yet, the movie industry knows that what will make people watch a movie is (at least in many cases) the latter. The abundance of remakes and sequels attest to this fact.

Let’s take the case of science fiction films. Why experiment with an original and unknown story like this:

YouTube Preview Image

When you can make remakes, sequels, or prequels of a story that science fiction fans are familiar with, like this:

YouTube Preview Image

In conclusion, a strong brand is without a doubt a very strong marketing tool, sometimes the most important one for market success. It may be even stronger than the product itself, even if in many cases consumers will be reluctant to admit it. This fact becomes even stronger with the wide use of social media. It is a lot easier and cooler for anyone to twit “Check out the new Spiderman movie” than “Check out this new movie that I find interesting, but you have never heard about before”.


Antonios (Adoni) Stamatogiannakis, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Marketing
IE Business School – IE University

Antonios . Stamatogiannakis @ ie . edu


Desde el Retail

Uno de los síntomas de la incipiente recuperación económica, y directamente conectado con la mejora del consumo interno, sería la recuperación parcial de la innovación en los mercados de gran consumo. Como dato, el peso de las productos innovadores sobre el total ventas supera en más del 50% el alcanzado en el año anterior (6.4% acumulado a Marzo 2014).

Se trata de una recuperación basada principalmente en extensiones de línea y mejoras parciales de producto, ya que el 5% que corresponde a marcas nuevas e innovaciones radicales está aún muy lejos del 20% conseguido en el año 2007. A pesar de lo anterior, en un 30% de las categorías de gran consumo la innovación aporta más de la mitad de el crecimiento conseguido.

Y dentro de esta innovación destaca cada vez más la realizada directamente por la distribución detallista en relación con sus marcas del distribuidor. Sobresale Mercadona, con el desarrollo de espacios específicos en algunas tiendas (doce en la actualidad) donde se facilita el acceso de los clientes a nuevos productos para directamente recoger su opinión sobre ellos, sus sugerencias, y sobre todo acceder a la utilización real del producto para ver como es la experiencia de uso.


No sorprende que Mercadona sea considerada como la empresa líder en nuevos lanzamientos, con 400 registrados en el año anterior. No se trata solo de una cuestión de cantidad, ya que además coloca dos nuevos productos entre las diez primeras innovaciones del año según un estudio de Kantar Worldpanel.


La distribución detallista no solo prioriza cada vez más el desarrollo propio de innovaciones como alternativa a la mera copia de los productos de fabricante sino que cada vez más es reconocida por el consumidor en este sentido, percibiendo la aportación de valor del producto adicionalmente al eje precio y dándole cada vez más credibilidad en segmentos de prestaciones y calidad superiores.

Y como ejemplo comentar el caso de Eroski. Recientemente tuve la oportunidad de asistir a una presentación de Ana Cuevas, directora comercial y compra de productos frescos, sobre un nuevo concepto de alimentación llamado Eroski Cooking (

YouTube Preview Image

Consiste en una línea de productos compuesta por tres componentes precocinados preparados para ser acabados en un proceso de ensamblaje . El primero sería el producto principal, la base, consistente en una relación de carnes, pescados y pasta a elegir. El paso dos incluye las guarniciones, mientras que el último paso se refiere a la elección de salsas entre un surtido de distintos sabores.


Entre los principales encontraríamos pasta con albahaca, muslo de pollo relleno de jamón, merluza al vapor, bacalao confitado y salmón a la plancha. La guarniciones incluirían champiñones estofados, salteado de guisantes con jamón, wok de verduras, arroz con langostinos o patatas carbonara entre otros. Por último, las salsas incluyen salsa verde, de oporto y hongos, de tomate, de quesos y nueces, al curry, de mostaza o piperada. Claramente se trata de propuestas alejadas de la comida preparada funcional y más próxima a la alta gastronomía.

A partir de lo anterior el número de combinaciones posibles es muy elevado ya que permite a al consumidor la personalización del producto final combinando los tres pasos o incluso reduciéndolos a dos. Esta flexibilidad de elección facilita la adaptación del menú elegido a la ocasión de consumo (regular / especial).

Otros elementos de valor aportado se refieren a la confianza que genera, ya que es el propio cliente quien manipula en última estancia un plato preparado al acabar su preparación en el momento de consumo, los beneficios referidos a calidad de componentes, o su comodidad por la rapidez de preparación.

El punto de partida en su concepción y desarrollo se sitúa en dar una nueva solución al cliente en el mercado de platos preparados que se aleje de procesos percibidos como industriales y desvinculados de la calidad y disfrute gastronómico. Y para conseguirlo se crea una línea de trabajo que intenta cambiar la forma de relacionarse entre fabricante y distribuidor, siendo los dos participes de un proyecto completo de co-creación enfocado en las necesidades del cliente y al que se unen distintos proveedores.


Fabricantes como Angulas Aguinaga, que aportan conocimiento del producto para liderar el desarrollo de un nuevo segmento de platos semi-preparados pero que priorizan el placer de la comida y el disfrute como valor principal. O proveedores como el Basque Culinary Center, que desarrollan las recetas y asesoran en lo referido a la cocción y conservación de todos los componentes para potenciar su sabor. O como el centro tecnológíco AZTI Tecnalia, encargado de garantizar los procesos productivos y la calidad sensorial, nutricional y garantías de este nuevo proceso.

Con independencia del resultado que esta propuesta pueda obtener en el mercado supone un avance en ejes muy claros en el desarrollo de la marca del distribuidor por parte del detallista.

El primero sería el acceso a segmentos de mercado de cada vez más valor, alejados de propuestas basadas exclusivamente en el precio bajo, como forma de diferenciarse, reforzar la marca, generar fidelidad, y mejorar rentabilidad.

En segundo lugar, una integración total de todos los participantes en el proceso así como un claro foco en el consumidor.

Y en tercer lugar, y como resultado de los dos anteriores, un sustancial cambio en la ambición de desarrollo de marcas del distribuidor. Huyendo de productos de imitación, rápidos y baratos en su desarrollo, para atacar proyectos mucho más ambiciosos, más largos de llevar a cabo y mucho más complejos, y por lo tanto, que exigen una inversión considerablemente más alta

Confianza, personalización, alta gastronomía…. Valores aportados al consumidor bastante alejados del tradicional eje precio para una marca del distribuidor.

Saludos muy cordiales


Can you disrupt the market with a best-in-class shopping experience? Amazon thinks so.

Marketing and Strategy books claim that you should strive to create a Monopoly, to come up with a Blue Ocean where no competition takes place. This approach is also know as becoming a Game Changer, breaking the existing rules and coming up with something that sets you appart.

blue ocean

When analyzing companies that have managed to do so, we mainly encounter companies that came up with innovative products, that outperformed everything available in the market. However, as competition and globalization evolve, this has turned out to be more and more difficult and nowadays, most companies happen to succeed through innovations in the Business Model (Google) or Customer Experience (Apple with the I-phone).

In this context, Amazon has just launched its new Fire Smartphone, an expected move  supported by analysts, that enview it as a Game Changing through a top-notch shoppping experience.


Is it the case?

Before responding, let´s analyze brevely what they have launched and where does Amazon stand.

The launch has been somewhat different from the one done with the Kindle Fire Tablet for two reasons:

a) The smartphone is a top-class one from a spec perspective (compared to a stripped down version from the initial Kindle Fire tablets).

b) The street price has not been undercut (which was the case with the Kindle Fire tablet).

YouTube Preview Image

The latter is basically telling us that Amazon feels more comfortable about its positioning and confident to demand somewhat similar prices than those from Apple and Samsung.

In this regard, it is fair to say that Amazon has done an impressive job in terms of attracting its customer base (mainly the in US) and getting app developers on board (you can now download more than 300k apps through the Amazon Portal), whilst providing a state-of-the-art shopping experience

Being this the case, I do think that Amazon is taking a reasonable risk, that sets the basis for its long term strategy: Reaping the benefits of a loyal customer base, that is expected to keep on purchasing from Amazon, even when discounting is not applied.


My first guess is that the initial results will be positive but will not tell if the bet works. This will be the case for the Phone will be just launched in the US with AT&T, which is where Amazon is stronger and gets most of its loyal customer base. The challenges will show up in the mid-term, when they need to go beyond the american market and convince other markets (like Europe) to pay full price for an Amazon device.

And my second guess is that this will be an all or nothing initiative. For if they are unable to reach in two years to a critical customer base, key app developers and distributors (mainly Telecom Companies) will stop supporting them.

Time to time then. But let´s welcome Amazon Phone on board!


Ignacio Gafo

PS: This post is dedicated to Teresa Serra, my mentor at IE Business School, and to all my loyal blog readers that have being patient with me. Sorry about so many months without posting. Just needed a small break to Reset!!! and go beyond Think Different!!!



Some months ago we wrote in this blog about the outstanding change of P&G advertising strategy for the London Olympics. Being used to their rational and functional copy strategy we were caught by surprise with their beautiful Iñarritu ad.

Well, the same feeling was coming to me a couple of days ago when watching the latest Danone advertising campaign ( not as beautiful as Iñarritu’s I have to say).

New Danone ad was trying to convey pure emotions showing no signs of their well known “reason why” and “functional value” so characteristic of their communication strategy.

YouTube Preview Image

Interesting change, or should I say desperate change? I recently see this common trend in lead brands losing market share due to uncompetitive  value proposition in the market.

I have to admit upfront that my personal view in advertising persuasion strategy is that you convince consumers with the mind but conquer them through the heart.  Competitor brands can copy and challenge your arguments but they can’t trade and copy the genuine feelings consumers experiment with your brand.

I confess I am biased by my professional experience at Pepsi and Unilever as well as my close partnership with former BBDO executives, now Sra. Rushmore owners. Our work in these years with Pepsico brands has shaped my vision in this regard.

It is interesting to notice that when companies traditionally stubborn in functional advertising see no exit at the end of the tunnel, their reaction is dramatic. Often shifting from white to black without exploring the grey areas where probably the equilibrium is.

This is the case of Danone. Danone  focus in the past years has been  to communicate their innovation superiority ( facing some legal problems with the claims they used in their Activia and Actimel products) , to disregard private labels as a decent rival ( communicating they don’t co-pack private labels) , and just recently to communicate their value price ( ie. Price reductions to finally fight private labels and economic recession) .

So, as you can see the change with the new ad has been dramatic.  In this regard, I need to point out that as dangerous is the white as the black. I mean, as dangerous is to be 100% emotional or 100% functional ( with some exceptions).

The reason is that despite emotions are not so easy to copy, they are if too generic, difficult to differentiate.

Have a look at these smily logos, how unique and different are they? can the smile become an unique and differentiated icon as the Nike swoosh?







Captura de pantalla 2013-04-02 a la(s) 00.31.00






I don’t buy the argument that they belong to different product categories, do you still think consumer perceptions have borders and don’t relate product categories?

I actually understand the strategic vision of Danone. I also like the “smile” approach and their core idea about “feeding smiles” . However I wonder whether the execution they have delivered has the right balance. Even more, I wonder whether they have realized the extraordinary effort and integrated communication that will be  required to implant this brand belief in consumer’s minds.

In any case, I admire their brave decision and hope they will have the patience and strength  to steer the brand in this new direction of renewed consumer trust and confidence.


I actually will be very interested in knowing your point of view. Would you like to share it?


Have a nice April month, hopefully sunnier than March :)




@carmenabril1 follow the discussion also in twitter




Acabo de volver del Mobile World Congress 2013. Muchas cosas que contar y pensar, pero ante todo una marca sobre la que escribir: Samsung.

El artículo del ExpansiónSamsung reta a Apple en el campo publicitario” del pasado 25 de Febrero lo explicaba muy bien:

  • Samsung quiere dejar atrás su posicionamiento técnico y pasarse al lado funcional.
  • Samsung apuesta por ello por la publicidad, en la que invierte del orden de 4,000 millones de € anuales (4 veces más que Apple). Cifra que se incrementa a 12,000 millones de € si incluimos otros conceptos como promociones de venta y PR.
  • Samsung ya está en el noveno puesto mundial de ranking de marcas de Interbrand, y se espera que llegue al 5ª en los próximos años.
  • Samsung ofrece hoy por hoy uno de los más amplios (si no el mayor) portfolio de productos en movilidad, superando objetivamente en prestaciones a Apple y sus I-Phone.

samsung vs apple


Muy en la línea con el macro despliegue que Samsung hizo en el Congress, que  venía a reforzar este estrategia de combinar Producto y Publicidad mejor que nadie: El stand más grande con diferencia, con la mayor variedad de smartphones  y tablets del mercado, con interesantes innovaciones en formato y prestaciones y, con una presencia omnipresente (fueras adonde fueras, te encontrabas alguna publicidad suya).

YouTube Preview Image

Lo que contrasta notoriamente con Apple (y Google), que no sólo no presentaron grandes novedades, sino que además no contaban siquiera con stand… Como si el Congress no fuera con ellos…

Es cierto que a día de hoy la percepción de marca de Apple es todavía superior: Los smartphones y tablets de Apple se perciben como superiores (a pesar de tener importantes limitaciones técnicas y de ecosistema), y que la marca presenta unos índices de fidelidad incomparables. También que Samsung deslumbra pero no enamora, y que a pesar de la inversión, sigue todavía sin contar la imagen de exclusividad de Apple.

YouTube Preview Image

Pero, y es a lo que voy, ¿cuánto tiempo va a poder Apple permanecer por encima de su competidor? ¿Puede una compañía vivir de las rentas durante varios años? ¿O va a tener que dar un golpe encima de la mesa y lanzar algo revolucionario y reiventarse en publicidad?

Hacer cualquier predicción negativa de Apple es condenarse al escarnio público, pero lo voy a hacer: O Apple “makes it happen again” en el próximo año (es decir, antes del Mobile World Congress 2014), o el artículo de Expansión va a llamarse “Samsung supera a Apple”.

Ya lo veréis! Samsung está haciendo las cosas muy bien (a golpe de talonario y de “prueba y error, pero muy muy bien),  y es una cuestión de tiempo que la realidad supere a la ficción, o al menos la difumine…


Espero vuestras predicciones y comentarios en @ignaciogafo.


Ignacio Gafo

PS: De muestra un botón. El 14 de Marzo Samsung presenta en Galaxy SIV. Si el III y era superior al I-Phone 5, no quiero ni pensar el diferencial que va a haber con éste…


It was a question of time before Starbucks enteered in to the singke-serve expresso machine business with its own end-to-end ecosystem.

The launch took place in the US last October, with a range of Verismo coffee machines and  different options plastic capsules filled with pre-ground coffee or powdered milk. It was not innovative at all, there were quite a few options avaialable at a market clearly dominated by Nestle´s Nespresso and Green Mountain’s Keurig. However, the chance to enter a market worth 8 billion US$ globally, that was expected to grow by 147% in 2012, seemed to convince Starbucks to make the bet.

Starbucks opted at the launch for a premium pricing ($200 and above for the coffee machines and $1 for the coffee capsule) over Nespresso ($150 and above for the machines and $0,75 the capsules), assuming that its Brand Loyalty and Preference would make the difference.

YouTube Preview Image

Morevoer, it advertised heavily the product through Social Media and make the product available for purchase at Starbucks online store, its 4300 american stores stores and in a selection specialty stores.

Fiscal Q1 sales results have gone up to 150,000 machines according to the company, and Howard Schultz reminds me to Steve Jobs when commenting on the I-Pad first sales analysis:

“We remain committed to attaining leadership in the single-serve category, and I can tell you today that with Verismo we are in the nascent stage of building a multi-billion dollar platform for Starbucks over the long term,” said Schultz. “And we are in it for the long term.”


“I think it’s very important that you all understand that we are deeply, deeply committed to becoming the leader in this space domestically and internationally,” Schultz told the analysts.


“Our commitment, our interest, our motivation to build on single-serve and build on Verismo is 100 percent and we are going to maintain a high level of commitment and investment in this, where we are going to be the global leader,” he continued.


No question from my side about the Company commitment to this new business: The CEO and the company is fully committed and have actually promised new features, designs and alternatives already placed in the Verismo Roadmap for the next years.

But, at the same time, some “What if” questions show up in my mind:

- What if cannibalization from the Stores take place?

- What if after some early success coming from Starbucks fans, the sales drop?

- What if they are not able to cope with Nespresso´s brand equity and broader assortment of flavors in the mid and long term?

- What if it does not work when bringing the system out of US?

- What if the market matures at the time they are to compete?

- What if Sara Lee replicates what it did with Nespresso and launches capsules for Verismo as well?

I am a big marketing fan of Mr Schultz and believe he can make it happen again. However, the what if questions make me doubt whether Verismo creates or destroys value for Starbucks. At least for the time being…

I look forward for your comments and views @ignaciogafo / @ieweblog.


Ignacio Gafo


I find the battle and transformation of the digital industry fascinating. Everyday I find news and data that makes me think about the importance that positioning has over technology in many cases. Let me explain it.

Just over 10 years ago this industry was basically divided between software companies and hardware companies also called OEM’s ( Original Equipment Manufacturers)

The profitability of the sector has worked brilliantly for Microsoft that dominated the software industry and not so brilliantly for some hardware manufacturers that realized too late about the importance of the cost advantage to compete.

The only exception to this business model was Apple, who as you all know, played in both sides of the industry. However, remember that at that time Apple was a niche player with around 6 bn revenues far from their current 110 bn $.

It is interesting to notice than ten years ago, Microsoft envisioned a change in the industry paradigm when they thought digital apps (or software)  could take over some paper tasks like reading, writing and organizing all documents at once. To develop a device “as handy as paper” was Gates vision. And the Tablet PC was born.

The idea was really visionary but the business model and positioning chosen to implement it was proven very wrong.

Microsoft allowed the OEMs such a high level of flexibility on the hardware design that made it impossible to clearly position the new product producing a great level of confusion on consumers that weren’t sure about what the product was offering




After the humiliation of Apple success in the market with the Ipad , a similar idea than Microsoft TabletPC- less ambitious I must say , key players started to realize that consumer experience is driven by hardware and software along. This fact,  together with the evidence that digital convergence was inevitable, lead to start thinking that traditional industry division might not have sense in the (near) future.

Last week Tim Cook boasted that Apple sells more iPads now than any OEM competitor sells PCs, and company achieved more than 150 million icloud users.

PC’s are being replaced in education by ipads or tablets, the world is becoming “mobile” , information need to be at hand everywhere and under these circumstances the question is: what is happening to the “hardware” part of the industry?

Google needed a Hardware (Motorola), Nokia needed a Software ( Microsoft). But what do the traditional OEM’s -those dependent on third-party software and pushing low-cost hardware at high volumes- like HP, Lenovo, Acer need? Is it just Windows 8?

How are they going to compete in the new market ? Lighter, thinner, sleeker, cheaper models…? PC tablets with no ecosystem network?

Aren’t they facing the innovator’s dilemma remaining slave of the tyranny of the served customers ?

How is this situation going to affect their relationship with their software providers?

At the end of the day, are they now Friends or Foes?


Complex but fascinating,

What would you do?


continue at @carmenabril1




Let me start stating that I am really glad that Microsoft is back. After many years of struggle they have been able to come up with two products that could make the difference: Windows 8 and Surface. With them, they can end up competing with Google and Apple in the new IT and Mobile scenario, and become a serious third option for most users…  However, one question comes to my mind: Has Microsoft chosen the best marketing strategy for Surface and Windows?

The other day I spoke to a colleague from IE that claimed something interesting: It is not good to try to become someone you are not. It is like being introverted and try to become extroverted because you think it is more appreciated… This can do no good to you!”  For two reasons I would add: It is unlikely that will be able to go through such a transformation + could eventually lead to a squizophrenic disorder

So, you may say, what is the connection Microsoft? Easy. They might be pretending to be someone they are not!!!

Let me go through what has happened during this week: Microsoft organized a superb and extremely cool p. Product Launch that included

  • A worldwide launch, connecting different cities from the World at the same time, that you ou could watch real time with Microsoft News Center.


  • The Microsoft Holiday Store in NY, that was opening the day of the launch at midnight.


  • Microtropolis: An immersive and interactive 160-foot “mini” Manhattan  where the neighborhoods are represented through Windows 8 touch-enabled PCs and devices.
YouTube Preview Image

My first reaction was “Wow, they have gone beyond Apple!” but, once the hype passed away and feelings settled down, I somehow felt that they were actually pretending to become cooler than Apple, by doing what the latter does amazingly , even better…

This was applicable to the Product Launch, but also to the Product Strategy, where they now try to target end customers with an end to end solution that incorporates hardware + software all together…


Having said that, some questions come to me:

  • Aren´t they trying to emulate from Apple their Cool Positioning and Product Approach + improve it, in order to become the Next Big Thing?
  • Is this the best strategy the can follow? Does it fit strategically with their strengths and competitive advantages? Is it sustainable?
  • Is it replicable what they have actually managed to do with the X-Box and Kinnect for their tablet and Operating System? Or are we speaking about a different business scenario, with different players?
  • And the most impotant ones: Aren´t they pretending to be someone they are not? Aren´t they challenging their own NDA? Will the organization (and Microsoft Brand) end up in a squizophrenic disorder? Or will they be able to reinvent themselves?


I really look forward for your comments in @ignaciogafo and @ieweblog.


Ignacio Gafo


PS: Special thanks to my IE colleague for inspiring the post :).

1 2 3 8

We use both our own and third-party cookies to enhance our services and to offer you the content that most suits your preferences by analysing your browsing habits. Your continued use of the site means that you accept these cookies. You may change your settings and obtain more information here. Accept