On Steve Jobs’ Resignation as Apple CEO

Since Steve Jobs announced his resignation as CEO of Apple, the web has been full of tributes to the tech icon. Given his health issues, many of the tributes read like obituaries, but it’s understandable. If his health weren’t failing, he’d still be running the company.

As a life-long Apple user and creative professional, I can’t help but to reflect a bit myself. Jobs gave us a lot of insanely great products. As Seth Godin wrote, we owe him. But it was more than the products; it was also the man himself that impacted many of us, even if we didn’t know him.

Jobs was a visionary. Jobs was a risk-taker. Jobs was an artist.

As many note, Jobs was also a master marketer and salesman, a part of him that is often misunderstood. Whenever there’s an article about Jobs on the web, anti-Apple comments crop up like flowers after a spring rain. Apple haters are eager to sneer that Apple consumers have all been duped by Jobs into buying overpriced garbage. If you ask most Apple fans, we’re often at a loss to respond to the hate. Yes, he was a good salesman, but he bore no resemblance to the archetypal used car salesman. Oh well, we shrug, haters will hate, but the big thing is they just don’t see what we see.

So as Jobs begins to leave the world stage, I’ve reflected on what it is that I’ve seen all these years in Steve Jobs and Apple, and what I’ve seen is an authentic belief in human potential at its highest expression, and I apologize to every Apple employee, but it’s been embodied in and has radiated from Steve Jobs.

Let me try to explain this, because it’s a little subtle and elusive. Jobs’ famous “reality distortion field” represents for me his ability to use the medium of a product announcement, and ultimately consumer products, to give us a glimpse into something important — the limitless possibilities of technology, creativity and human potential to transform the world.

Sure, the cynical among us saw in each keynote speech only the polished act of a master illusionist, but I believed in Jobs. It’s not that I believed the latest Apple product would change the world or that each new product represented the most amazing human artifact ever created. Rather, I believed that Steve Jobs believed it, and it amazed me that someone could see so much in the work he was doing. I believed him also because he was sincere; when he wasn’t into it (like announcing the Motorola ROKR), you could tell, it was obvious.

But more than that, I believe Steve Jobs was authentically connected to a depth of meaning most CEOs and engineers are oblivious to. If you were intuitive enough, and listened hard enough, if you saw beyond the presentation, you could almost see in Jobs the intangible force that animates the long chain of human tool-making, from the first hand axe to the wheel to the cotton gin to the automobile. And you could see everything social, cultural and existential good technology represents, but that we never talk about — an expansion of our senses, our intellect, our ability to be together in the world and do useful things.

That was the impact of Steve Jobs for me, the depth of his engagement in his enterprise, his work, and its connection to the human experience. Again, when at his best, I believe that he believed in it. And, to paraphrase Fox Mulder, I wanted to believe in it too.

I’ve bought so many Apple products for the normal reasons. They work, they help me do creative things, they look cool. But I’ve also bought them because there’s that depth in them. In a unique way, like Jobs’ life, they are a celebration of human possibilities.

I hope Tim Cook understands.

Growth is Just Another Word for Change

Wow, it’s been some time since I’ve posted here, and I do apologize to anyone who might have been reading last year. The back half of 2010 was one of the busiest periods of my career, both with work and my teaching schedule, so again, wow, six months is an embarrassingly long time between blog posts.

Well, 2011 doesn’t promise to be any less busy for me, and may in fact be more so. Regardless, I hope to keep the blog going and also to flesh out the rest of the site. In the past year, I’ve completed dozens of projects in branding, product development, and design, and I need to get it all posted, as each one is a story in itself … but enough excuses and apologies.

One of my ongoing personal and professional interests is growth. Most business ventures measure their success and health in terms of growth, specifically top-line (revenue) and bottom-line (profit) growth. From quarter to quarter, year over year. A business that continues to grow at a “healthy” rate, we generally assume, continues to win customers, develop new products, tap new markets, gain market share and ultimately reward shareholders.

Despite the sometimes unhealthy outcomes of this emphasis on growth (for instance, through accelerating depletion of the earth’s natural resources), the ability to continue to grow remains a hallmark of a successful business venture, of successful executive management and of sound strategy.

There is a strong correspondence in my mind between the organizational and the personal here in the sense that the most successful people continue to grow. Not always in quantifiable metrics, of course. They learn new skills, expand their networks, become more sophisticated and deeper, more rounded human beings.

Problems start, of course, when growth stalls. There was a great HBR article a few years back by Matthew S. Olson, Derek Van Bever and Seth Verry, called “When Growth Stalls.” The authors researched and categorized several of the most common causes for stalled growth in organizations. These include such phenomena as premium-position captivity, where we fall in love with high margins and allow competition to undercut our market share; innovation management breakdown; premature core abandonment; and talent bench shortfall, among others.

At the end of the day, however, Olson et al. conclude that the common root cause of stalled growth is a failure to adjust to changing circumstances in the external environment. The antidote is of course to develop self-critical disciplines that continually test assumptions and capacities against ongoing environmental scans.

I would add that we need a fair measure of courage. Growth is just another word for change. If we can’t or won’t change, we can’t grow. And change isn’t for the timorous, comfortable and complacent. It isn’t easy.

These realities apply both to organizations and to us as individual professionals/human beings. If we seek growth, we must be sensitive to changes in the external environment. And we must be prepared to embrace change, which means we must be prepared (indeed, we must find the courage) to make tough decisions and suffer a little pain here and there.

If we do not have the guts to change, we cannot expect to enjoy the benefits of long-term, meaningful growth. That’s really all there is to it.

Posted in Business Growth by Eric. No Comments

Consumer Value Calculus

In marketing, value is usually defined as the utility that consumers derive from the consumption of a good or service. Going a step further, value resides in the package of benefits delivered by an organization to an individual through the medium of a product or service.

Of course, there is something of a tangible exchange involved in the delivery/consumption of value — the organization gets money and the consumer gets an object or service — but ultimately, even if the product is a hard good, much of the value in the transaction is perceptual or experiential. We, as consumers, buy a future expected experience.

So value, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, and the utility derived from a product or service is not a fixed, absolute value, but is rather a fluid calculation by the consumer at the interface of the perceived product/service benefits.

As consumers, we take in the mix of functional, emotional and self-expressive benefits and do our own subconscious math. Will the product/service solve my problem? How will it make me feel? Will it say something about me that I find meaningful? The answers to these questions vary from consumer to consumer, and from time to time. What I may value, you may not. What I may value today, I may not tomorrow.

Against this consumer value calculus, obviously, we attach a price. When we set a price for a product or service, we are most often setting a threshold, and not an absolute value. If I set the price of my product at $100, I am thinking about competitors, profit and so on, but I’m also expecting that my target consumers will do their private value calculations and determine that the expected utility of my product meets or exceeds that $100 threshold.

Okay, so I’ve just turned marketing common sense into something very abstract. But I want to emphasize the importance of this “consumer value calculus” to product development and marketing in general. The more we know about it, the better we are able to develop and deliver a package of benefits that will drive business growth.

Effective product development has to mean more than features and design. It has to extend beyond functional benefits if we are to innovate our offer and to create enduring brands. It has to take into account the values and lives of our consumers. Effective marketing means much of the same.

If one could work out a formula for this value calculus, it would be useful for product development and marketing both. I’m not sure what the equation would be (if someone knows, let me in on it), but the variables are likely to relate to the benefit package — functional, emotional and self-expressive. You would likely need to weight the variables based on the product category and the target consumer.

Lacking an equation for consumer value, a qualitative approach seems apt. Usually, consumers do the internal math at every brand or product touch point. When they see an ad. When they read an article. Even at the point of decision, right there at the store. At any of these touch points, we can do research. We can ask consumers to respond to the product, capture their value assessments and ascertain what factors are most meaningful. Then, product developers and marketers can take that insight back to the office and engineer a better value package, as well as the communication strategy to support it.

Is anyone doing this kind of “value calculus” research? If so, please share with me. Or if there’s a formula out there, let me know that too. Otherwise, I’ll have to work it out myself!