Convergence versus divergence
There is a bit of a discussion over at the Origins of Brands Blog, operated by Laura Ries, on whether the iPhone is a success (just because it's an Apple product?) or a bit of a failure due to the fact that it has too many functions rammed into its small case.
The discussion also brings in the notions of convergence and divergence. I'm a big fan of the Ries' books and support their view that both brands and products diverge -- as nature intended. Sure, you may see counter examples, but I'd still place my money on divergent products and brands over convergent ones. I'd also guess that the profit margins in convergent products are razor thin compared with more specialized, divergent products.
I can give you some examples of convergent products. Ask yourself if you have bought any of these lately:
1. Shampoo and conditioner in one bottle.
2. A television and DVD combined.
3. Salt and pepper combined in one shaker.
4. A washing machine and tumble dryer combined.
5. Toothpaste and mouthwash combined.
6. A record or CD turntable combined with an amplifier.
7. A coffee grinder and coffee maker.
8. A supersonic wrist watch and radio.
No. We just don't operate like that. I don't even surf the Web like that: I go here. Then I go there. Then I visit here. Yahoo is a classic example of a failing convergence brand/product. Yahoo tried to offer Web hosting services only to be booted out by Godaddy. Google is making the same mistake. Google this, Google that: brand stretching gone mad.
Yum have many brands. They know that divergence is the way. Similarly, how can Clorox slap its brand on salad dressing? No, it uses a new brand name, Hidden Valley. It also keeps Burt's Bees separate from its Clorox brand.
One of Starbuck's local competitors in Taiwan
The funny thing is, some of the critics of Laura Ries' stance against convergence products are, at the same time, against Starbucks selling smoothies.
PS. For an interesting view on the future of Apple, read or listen to Clayton Christensen any time he discusses proprietary versus modular architectures.
The discussion also brings in the notions of convergence and divergence. I'm a big fan of the Ries' books and support their view that both brands and products diverge -- as nature intended. Sure, you may see counter examples, but I'd still place my money on divergent products and brands over convergent ones. I'd also guess that the profit margins in convergent products are razor thin compared with more specialized, divergent products.
I can give you some examples of convergent products. Ask yourself if you have bought any of these lately:
1. Shampoo and conditioner in one bottle.
2. A television and DVD combined.
3. Salt and pepper combined in one shaker.
4. A washing machine and tumble dryer combined.
5. Toothpaste and mouthwash combined.
6. A record or CD turntable combined with an amplifier.
7. A coffee grinder and coffee maker.
8. A supersonic wrist watch and radio.
No. We just don't operate like that. I don't even surf the Web like that: I go here. Then I go there. Then I visit here. Yahoo is a classic example of a failing convergence brand/product. Yahoo tried to offer Web hosting services only to be booted out by Godaddy. Google is making the same mistake. Google this, Google that: brand stretching gone mad.
Yum have many brands. They know that divergence is the way. Similarly, how can Clorox slap its brand on salad dressing? No, it uses a new brand name, Hidden Valley. It also keeps Burt's Bees separate from its Clorox brand.
The funny thing is, some of the critics of Laura Ries' stance against convergence products are, at the same time, against Starbucks selling smoothies.
PS. For an interesting view on the future of Apple, read or listen to Clayton Christensen any time he discusses proprietary versus modular architectures.
posted by Gordon Graham at 10:32 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home