I’m amazed – no, actually appalled – at the number of companies who spend tens of thousands of dollars developing a new product, take it to a trade show, gain press recognition and even Best of Show awards and then do absolutely nothing to capitalize on the interest generated or monetize their efforts with a thoughtful sales strategy.

Two recent examples stand out for me:

At last month’s Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, Griffin introduced an iPad mount that screws onto the end of a microphone stand. It’s the perfect solution for me since I like to use my iPad as a teleprompter for online videos that I post to assorted blogs, and the mic stand holder would let me position the iPad directly above the tripod holding my camera.

Apparently I’m not the only one who sees the appeal of  this innovation, since Griffin generated a lot of media mentions including major technology blogs like Gizmodo and tuaw.

Glad You Like Us. Now Go Away.
But heading over to the Griffin website, I discovered that despite its announcement, the product wasn’t available for sale but was Coming Soon. What does that mean? It means that if I want the mic stand mount I have to keep checking back every few days until it actually becomes available. Griffin took no steps to capture my identity to inform me when it becomes available, didn’t ask me for an email address to keep in touch, didn’t  take a pre-order (which I would have paid for) and, in general, did absolutely nothing to connect with me and potentially sell me on this or other Griffin iPad related products.

They wasted an ideal opportunity to convert innovation into sales.

Based on the size of their booth at CES, I’d bet that Griffin spent more than $100,000 to attend the CES and showcase their products, not including the cost of developing the products themselves, yet their  efforts resulted in annoyance and alienation because they failed to implement any method to satisfy customer interest or plan to get their new products out of their development lab and into our hands.

It Gets Worse
As badly as Griffin handled the handoff from innovation to sales, they’re all-stars compared to MacWorld Best of Show Winner Scosche.

At this month’s Macworld Expo, the device manufacturer introduced a terrific innovation that iPod and iPhone users have been clamoring for: a Bluetooth connected pulse monitoring strap that will track your pulse and calories burned throughout your workout.

The product was so innovative that Macworld name the myTrek one of the Best in Show winners and published a lengthy article detailing the product’s features.

Result: Nothing
Who could ask for more? Well, I could. Because I actually tried to visit their website to buy the product. I’ve been waiting months for someone to introduce this precise product to track my workouts so I clicked over to their website and found…nothing.

That’s right. Nothing. Not a product page, not a press release, not a blog post, not a single mention. Confused, I turned to their Search utility and entered myTrek. Again, nothing.

Innovation FAIL
So Scosche invested thousands to develop a highly sought after product integrated with the single most popular mobile phone in the world, they introduced it at the biggest Apple show in the country and gained Best in Show honors yet they failed not only to promote the product on their corporate home page, but failed to create a web page for the product at all.

And the only thing truly surprising is that they’re not the only innovation-focused company that treats its products with such disregard.

Corporate innovation is intended to produce results. Results that can be measured in dollars collected. There’s simply no excuse for any company to invest in innovation projects yet ignore the revenue  producing potential of those projects by failing to integrate sales and marketing functions from the  start so that the company can maximize the return on their investment and realize the full potential of their innovation.

In a recent scholarly analysis, “How the Weak Win Wars: A Theory of Asymmetric Conflict,” author Ivan Arreguin-Toft analyzed battles between very large armies and small forces and concluded that during the past 200 years the smaller David-sized forces won nearly 30 percent of the time. In many of these battles, the smaller forces were outnumbered 10 to one, yet were able to defeat their numerically superior foe.

Even more amazing, is that when the smaller foe employed an unplanned, surprise battlefield tactic instead of conducting combat in the traditional and anticipated way, their winning percentage shot up to 64 percent.

The business lesson: When underdogs choose not to play by Goliath’s rules, they win.

Entrepreneurs are perfectly positioned to operate as insurgents against their entrenched corporate competitors because they’re more willing to challenge the conventions about how commercial battles are supposed to be fought.

Large companies expect to confront competitors. They build enormous corporate strongholds and fill them with regiments of employees in anticipation of large scale engagements. They deploy massive human and financial resources to execute their strategic plan and prepare to crush their competitors.

But, despite their size and strength, these lumbering companies are rarely prepared to confront nimble and fast-moving adversaries that refuse to challenge them on the battlefield of their own design.

How can the entrepreneurial Davids succeed against their Goliath adversaries?

1. Define yourself differently. If you own a hardware store, and Walmart announces plans to open a store in your town, you’d better have a plan to be the anti-Walmart. You know how Walmart positions itself: As the low cost provider. Knowing that, you’ve got to recognize that you’ll never beat Walmart at its own game. Because you can’t win being the low cost provider, you have to define your own niche and then own it. Stock specialty tools, provide in-depth training classes, rent tools, or  become an expert and indispensable in home renovation. Be delightfully different.
2. Attack their weak spots relentlessly. It’s easy to identify your large competitor’s strengths and essential to pick out their weaknesses. Large organizations are typically prepared to counter direct competition but are woefully unprepared to respond to guerilla insurgencies. Because they like to remain above the fray, you can attack them on your own terms on the battlefield of your choosing.
3. Deliver the goods. The success of every strategy comes down to one essential thing: Execution. Once you’ve defined yourself, you have to deliver the goods repeatedly and relentlessly. There are no days off.
4. Extend yourself online. People will continue to do business with people they like, so pursue efforts that make you and your business personable and likable. Start blogging daily about your unique approach to your business, create a Facebook page that actually invites people to engage with you, create compelling content on your website that informs, educates, and entertains, and connect with the Twitter devotees in your area to build enduring relationships 140 characters at a time.

What tips do you have for defeating your large competitors?

Originally posted at Spin Sucks.

It was a precipitous and entirely avoidable fall.

Liz Claiborne broke the first commandment of branding: Be true to your clients and yourselves.

Claiborne made its name by designing stylish career wear for the millions of women, particularly younger women, entering the workforce. Their pieces were consistently styled and well made, delivering a specific brand promise to the women who stocked their closets with Claiborne ensembles that could be mixed and matched to create multiple outfits from a handful of separates.

Claiborne developed a loyal and trusting following of women who appreciated her collections. But with her retirement from the company in 1989, the brand began to suffer. There was no designer who shared Liz Claiborne’s design aesthetic and without a design leader, the company regressed to a financial leader whose focus was the bottom line, not the hemline.

Design by committee emerged, diluting the Claiborne brand promise in a fruitless pursuit of the youth culture. Their working women loyalists took notice and turned their backs on uninspired and confusing Claiborne collections that were considered fashion forward but not geared toward working women, the brand’s core constituency.

The dispiriting Claiborne story was in sharp contrast to the story that Jay Greene recounts in his book Design is How it Works. Porsche has remained remarkably successful in an industry that has few perpetually thriving automakers. Porsche attributes their success to an unyielding devotion to the design principles encompassed in the very first 911 that debuted in 1963.

Since their very first car, Porsche has remained true to its design DNA by incorporating specific design cues – intakes instead of a radiator grill, a car that always tapers to the rear, open wheel rims to display the strong brake calipers, front fenders always higher than the hood, ignition always on the left of the steering wheel and vertically oriented dashboards – that support their vision of a car that is all about driving performance and authenticity.

Porsche has never varied from a design approach that produces cars that their own designers crave. They never cut corners. They never adopt trends that risk the company’s credibility. And they never try to appeal to everybody.

Porsche designers intuitively understand the desires of their most passionate drivers and develop new cars with them in mind. Liz Claiborne took a different tack and abandoned their brand promise and with it their most loyal clients in pursuit of a younger, more active customer. They alienated their most loyal customers without generating any traction with the fickle and trend conscious youth market who want nothing to do with the company who makes clothes for their mothers.

Porsche has had an endless string of hits, including their Boxster, Cayman, Cayenne and Panamera and reported record profits in 2009. Liz Claiborne has virtually ceased to exist. Breaking your brand promise appears to have severe repercussions. If only the Claiborne executives drove Porsches, they’d understand.

How many other successful brands have hastened their corporate demise by abandoning their core principles and their most loyal customers? Sadly, I’ll bet it’s long. Real long.

Frustration?… Confusion?… Anger?

My personal list of Microsoft-inspired adjectives is lengthy, and nowhere on that list appears the word delight.

Frustrated with their perennial regard as the ugly and undesirable stepsister to Apple’s beloved fair maiden Microsoft decided to take action to reclaim their throne and assert their benevolent rule in the technology kingdom.

So, what does Microsoft, in all their imperial wisdom do to stand apart and reassert the provenance of their brand? Why they copy Apple’s retail store, of course. Right down to the fixtures.

Gizmodo acquired a leaked PowerPoint presentation detailing the design of the planned Microsoft retail stores, and after reviewing their plans one thought springs instantly to mind: plagiarism. Seriously, if a college architecture or design student submitted this presentation as a class project to create a new retail design, their professor would be entirely justified in red stamping “PLAGIARISM” across the cover page and charging the student with academic fraud.

When will companies learn that copying innovation and clever design does not bestow those qualities upon your organization?

I predict that within 24 months, Microsoft will realize the futility of copying Apple’s retail efforts and shutter their retail stores. The reasons why:

1. Apple delivers a unique Apple Experience that Microsoft cannot emulate, no matter how hard they try. Apple is a design company that expresses their design innovation through technology. Microsoft is a technology company that attempts to apply design elements to their technology after it’s created. Apple delivers an experience. Microsoft delivers a product. Delivering an exceptional user experience is in Apple’s corporate DNA. It is absent in Microsoft’s corporate DNA. And it’s not about to change.
2. Apple has total control over all of their hardware and software products, Microsoft simply licenses their technology to third parties. Apple maintains its near total control over its user experience by designing, developing and manufacturing every device themselves. This maniacal level of control ensures that there are no missteps in delivering a memorable and delightful user experience. But Microsoft adopted a dramatically different business model, licensing their technologies to thousands of companies to integrate into third party computers and devices. Microsoft’s licensing model expands Microsoft’s market but eliminates their ability to control how the software and hardware components interact with the user.
3. Apple focuses on simplicity while the Microsoft universe is inherently complex. Compared to the thousands of different products that integrate Microsoft technology, Apple offers only a handful of computers, tablets, phones and devices. Their limited product offerings allow Apple to retain control while the millions of iterations of Microsoft products expand the PC universe but add technical complexity and near infinite opportunities for user frustration.
4. It’s the culture, stupid. Steve Jobs instilled an innovation centered culture in Apple that has allowed them to create entirely new segments of technology. Microsoft is not known for their innovation and has not fostered a corporate culture that celebrates innovation and understands how to generate new ideas and new markets. And they apparently never will.
5. Microsoft can’t compete on price with their retail competitors. Apple maintains rigorous control over its distribution channel. They do not allow their products to be discounted, so the price you pay at the Apple store is the same that you pay at Best Buy. However, Microsoft will not be able to discount their offerings or offer the same number of configurations as their larger retail competitors. So why would anyone pay more to buy at Microsoft?
6. Renting your store out for birthday parties does not qualify as a brand differentiator. Nuff said.
7. Opening your stores next to existing Apple stores magnifies your lameness. We all know who was first. We all know who copied whom. Opening your store adjacent to an Apple store reinforces the perception that you have no original ideas.
8. Microsoft’s not cool. Apple is. Do you know anyone who camped out overnight to be the first to get the new Zune? Of course you don’t. No one does. Because Microsoft products are cool anti-matter.

The clock is ticking. When the last door shuts I’ll let you know.

A terrific article in today’s New York Times by Edward Niedermeyer prompted me to document my own belief, from the day I heard of GM’s announcement of their eco-friendly Volt hybrid that it would be a massive and historic commercial failure.

There may be no single automobile ever made that has garnered as much positive press and unfettered support from the press, the green lobby and the government. They desperately want the Volt not only to succeed but to be a game changer, a tipping point in the auto industry.

And I’m here to tell you it won’t be a game changer. It will tip no points, and it will end up losing massive sums of money.

It would be hard for any product to live up to the anticipation and hype that’s surrounded the Volt. The Volt’s  been assigned messianic status in the auto industry, preordained to be the savior of GM, the transformer of all transportation and the harbinger of an entirely new way of thinking in the auto industry.

But the Volt has been destined to fail from day one. Rather than asking their designers to make an already developed idea more attractive to consumers, GM should have asked them to create ideas that better meet consumers’ needs and desires. The former role is tactical, and results in limited value creation; the latter is strategic, and leads to dramatic new forms of value.

Their objective from the start shouldn’t have been limited to the objective of building a new hybrid car, but to create new interactions, entertainments, immersive, emotional activities that are embodied in an entirely new way to travel.

But GM is not a strategic, design-centered company. They’re a tactical company that has never demonstrated a capacity for design brilliance or its commensurate risk taking.

Want proof? Take a look at the actual Volt that they’ll be attempting to sell this fall for $41,000. It’s nothing more than a Toyota Prius with a $15,000 Chevy bowtie on its grille.

Contrast this bland design with the original concept car. It was bold, it was edgy, it stood out and made a statement. So, of course, GM had to assign some internal committee to tone it down a little. After all, they want it to appeal to the largest audience possible.

Their design killing efforts proved Mark Twains adage that “I cannot give you a formula for success, but I can give you a formula for failure, which is: Try to please everybody.”

I believe that brands are the promise of an experience. Great brands can project our hopes and dreams and aspirations. They broadcast who we are and what we believe.

So what is it that GM wants to convey with this rolling testament to corporate mediocrity that hasn’t already been captured and owned by the Prius?

Beyond the branding and design failures, GM has to overcome enormous financial, technical and practical hurdles that all conspire to doom the volt.

It’s expensive at $41,000 – which doesn’t include the price of the $2000 charger you’ll need in your garage.

Its electric motor range of 40 miles is virtually guaranteed never to be met in real world conditions. Subtract mileage when it’s cold or when you’re operating the AC or the radio.

And, when its battery needs to be replaced, get ready for the $8000 sticker shock.

The Volt is a corporate response to political pressures. It validates the contention that great design and revolutionary concepts don’t emerge from corporate boardrooms and government bureaucracies. The Volt is exactly what we would expect from Government Motors, and that’s the tragedy.

Imagine what could have been produced if Apple were to design a car from scratch. Or if Google teamed with Ideo to create a new commuter vehicle. I don’t know what they would conceive, but I do know one thing for certain: it wouldn’t be the Volt. And it wouldn’t require hundreds of millions in subsidies to attract buyers, and it wouldn’t be conceived without considering alternative green technologies that could be integrated into its design.

If the Volt symbolizes the new GM and the new Michigan, as Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm claims, pray for GM and Michigan.

We will critically examine our company to determine why we do what we do. What inspires us. What drives us. What excites us. Then we’ll write a brief statement that accurately, and singularly, describes our company. That can fit on a t-shirt. It will not contain the words: best, leading, biggest, profit, diversity, growth or exceed expectations.

Now, if you really, really feel that a mission statement is essential to understanding and guiding your business, you have the rules. My question is: Why do so many companies break these rules and create irredeemably awful, platitudinous and ultimately pointless mission statements?

My ire was inspired by an article I read on the Smart Business Online website this week detailing the efforts of Staffmark CEO Frederick Kohnke to rebrand his national staffing company around a unified vision, mission and values. The project took nine months and resulted in one of the most useless, generic mission statements I’ve ever read.

Really. That’s not just hyperbole. Although the resulting mission statement wasn’t included in the article (wtf?) I found it on the Staffmark website. Their mission:

To always strive to exceed the expectations of our employees, business customers, and external stakeholders.

How’s that for exciting? Really gets your juices flowing, doesn’t it? Strive to exceed expectations. What’s the matter, think outside the box was taken?

If you spend nine months creating a mission statement, odds are that it will be created not by the company founder or CEO, but by a committee tasked with the job of creating an inclusive mission statement. One that will take into account all their stakeholders, will be legally benign, generally inoffensive and ultimately uninspiring. One that will be guaranteed to include no distinctive or compelling voice, no descriptive or detailed verbs and certainly nothing that will differentiate it from any other staffing company. Staffmark succeeded spectacularly on all these counts.

What’s so terribly disappointing is that genuine, heartfelt mission statements can be inspiring and unique. Consider Ben & Jerry’s mission statement:

To make, distribute & sell the finest quality all natural ice cream & euphoric concoctions with a continued commitment to incorporating wholesome, natural ingredients and promoting business practices that respect the Earth and the Environment.

There’s not another ice cream manufacturer that could claim that mission statement. Euphoric concoctions. How wonderful is that phrase?  The precise wording matters because it captures the essence of Ben & Jerry’s. It could not be transferred to Briar’s website, or Edy’s or Haagen Dazs.

Or consider Coca-Cola’s mission to refresh the world. It captures their company spirit in a way that PepsiCo’s mission to be the world’s premier consumer products company focused on convenient foods and beverages doesn’t.

Being the premier, leading, biggest, most profitable company isn’t a mission, it’s an objective. It’s not inspiring to anyone outside of the company boardroom. Not one of your employees will get out of bed tomorrow and say to themselves “How am I going to make Company X bigger today?”  But I’ll bet there are Disney employees who get up and ask themselves “How can I make someone happy today?” And I’m certain that there are Apple employees who can’t wait to get to work to do something insanely great.

But apparently Staffmark is content with their employees exceeding expectations. Whose expectations? We don’t know. How are the expectations measured? We’re not sure. How will anyone know when they’ve exceeded expectations? They won’t. But, gosh darn it, it’s better to exceed expectations than fail to meet them, right? Then that’s the goal.

And I’ll bet that if I were to call 20 of Staffmark’s employees today, not more than one or two would be able to recount their company’s mundane mission statement. Anyone want to take me up on that?

At the time, Motorola was reeling from a string of lackluster phone releases that failed to generate any consumer excitement, their product designs were uninspiring and their engineering and development staffs were incapable of developing innovative products for the half-dozen different mobile operating platforms that they supported.

They’d lost their design mojo and appeared unable to recapture any Wow! factor.

The New York Times reported today that their new CEO, Sanjay Jha, has bet the company’s future on Motorola’s newest iPhone combatant, the Droid. And the early buzz indicates that the Droid may very well save the company.

How did Jha design a company saving product strategy that you can apply to your business?

1. design a better experience. The single biggest complaint about the iPhone is its lack of a real keyboard. The Droid offers a thin keyboard that slides out from the phone, thereby resolving the iPhone’s most glaring weakness and instantly appealing to thousands of users who love the iPhone concept but could not live with its touchscreen keyboard. Instant win.
2. personalize the experience. There are now more than 100,000 reasons why the iPhone is so popular with its users: applications. Every user has personalized their iPhone with the apps that complement their lives. Every user’s iPhone is unique to them, and by adopting Google’s Android mobile platform, the Droid has access to a growing library of Android apps that will allow Droid users to create a uniquely personal device that can’t be replicated on any other platform.
3. create a sensory experience. Although Motorola was known as a design innovator, they haven’t introduced a compelling product design for several years. The Droid changes that. Jha understood that the visual aesthetic and the tactile sensation of holding and using the Droid was crucial. Motorola smoothed some hard edges and covered the back of the phone with a tactilely pleasing rubberized coating. In addition, they’ve incorporated a larger, 16:9 hi-res display that delivers a compelling visual experience. Overall, it’s a sensorial delight.
4. create a WOW! experience. the Droid is being released with a new navigation system from Google that has amazed the early reviewers. It’s the kind of killer app that can generate huge volumes of sales on its own since it replaces the need for in-car navigation systems. It’s visually exciting, it’s instantly understandable and it delivers exceptional value. They captured Wow!

Apple has retained its position at the top of the smartphone heap for over two years. Challengers have been easily dismissed. Until now. And if Motorola can continue to focus on designing and delivering exceptional user experiences, they may very well challenge Apple’s dominance.

Any iPhone users thinking of making the switch and betting on the Droid?

The global internet audience now totals 625 million people, with almost 100 million of those users located in the United States. Nearly two-thirds of these users are active in one or more social networks.

What’s also revealed is how these users spend their time on the social networks. The most popular activity was watching video, followed by listening to streaming audio, blogging and connecting with friends.

What does this mean for you or your industry?

First of all, the place to connect with people – whether personally or professionally – is on one of the social networks. They’ve made their choice how they want to interact with others, and it’s not through email. For professionals, this typically means LinkedIn, though Facebook is being used more and more by professionals who have learned to adjust their privacy settings so as not to share overly personal information with other professional contacts.

These trends also mean that you need to generate content that is interesting, engaging and compelling enough to generate views and inspire your connections to share your content with their own network of friends and colleagues. The dominant format for this content: video. If you’re not creating videos to put on your site, your blog, your LinkedIn page, your Facebook Fan Page, then it’s time to start.

But don’t stop with video. Over 70% of social networkers also post photos to their pages. People want to see who they’re connecting with, and a thoughtfully designed series of photos can generate a powerful impression. For the professional, these can include images of your office, your personal workspace, your coworkers and even photos from events that you participate in. Sharing some personal visual insights will increase your familiarity, strengthening your connections with your networks.

Finally, if your company really wants to engage online, you need to create a community that’s worth joining. That means frequently updated, compelling content. The promise of interaction with other, like-minded people. A thoughtful, meaningful – even delightful – user experience. And the ability to listen to your community members and adjust your activities to satisfy their needs, not yours.

Brogan’s blog post and accompanying screen shot exemplified how simple, effective and targeted design could deliver a terrific user experience while solving a common problem: how to collect increasingly complex coffee and breakfast orders from an entire office staff.

I intended to write a post about the effectiveness of simple design so I downloaded the Dunkin Run app, launched it and immediately decided to change the theme of my post.

3 Quick Steps to Devastate Your Clever iPhone App:

1. Compel your user to enter login information that refers back to an unnamed site where the user ID must have already been created.
2. Provide no instruction, hints, links or ability to create a user ID from your application.
3. Ignite burning hatred of your application that cannot be accessed.

I’ve got to wonder… did anyone from Dunkin Donuts’ marketing department ever take a look at this app?

Did no one consider that brand new users – without existing Dunkin Donuts user ID’s – would try the app and hit a brick wall?

Where was the beta testing?

Dunkin Donuts: FAIL.

Sony Ericsson’s response to their negligible impact on the smartphone market? The introduction of an $800 smartphone to compete against the iPhone and Blackberry lineups. It’s almost as if they’re trying to fail.

Sony Ericsson is not renowned as a mobile phone provider, as evidenced by their 5% market share. Their forays into Walkman phones – phones capable of downloading and playing music – produced little consumer interest

Sony has always had a sharp eye for design, and they’ve certainly brought their design sensibility to their joint venture. Sony has designed and manufactured some of the most stylish and technically advanced electronics in the world. But their grasp of design apparently doesn’t extend to the full concept of design thinking, which also takes into account the entire user experience surrounding one’s product.

Play to Your Strengths
Anyone who has used a Sony product in the past 10 years knows how miserable the Sony user experience can be. I’ve owned Sony cameras, videocameras, ebooks and laptops and can attest that their devices don’t play well together, much less play well with others. Sony continually provides beautifully designed hardware with thoughtlessly designed software – a combination that guarantees a lousy experience. And yet they continue.

There is still a huge opening for Sony Ericsson in the smartphone market that can exploit one of Sony’s only remaining strengths: gaming.

Sony has sold over 50 million of their portable PSP gaming systems worldwide. They have experience in that sector that no other manufacturer has. They’ve watched the iPhone develop into a serious gaming platform, validating the market for combination phone/gaming systems.

So what does Sony Ericsson do? They release an $800 smartphone with a great camera and no gaming. Wow.

Maybe I’m the one who’s out of touch. It’s certainly possible. But I have serious doubt that a 12 megapixel camera will drive sales of an $800 smartphone when virtually every other smartphone offers at least a passable 3 MP picture. I just don’t believe that photos drive phone sales nearly as much as entertainment options drive phone sales.

Oh, by the way, Sony Ericsson isn’t even releasing their new phone for another 6 months. That just gives them more time to fall behind the new iPhone, Palm Pre and new Blackberry introductions before they launch an inexplicably expensive phone in a midst of a global recession.. Good luck guys. You’re going to need it.