TOO MANY ‘Qs’. NOT ENOUGH ‘007s’
James Tuckerman, Editor-In-Chief, Anthill Magazine
I was part of an ‘intimate’ and ‘confidential’ dinner with Innovation Minister Kim Carr last Wednesday night.
The topic was innovation (of course). And it was held for a small group of innovation experts, mostly academics and policy makers. The discussion initially focused on the role of government (as we await the outcomes of Dr Terry Cutler’s National Innovation Review) and was held ‘off the record’ (I was bound to secrecy).
However, I can tell you this…
Innovation is fast becoming the most boring topic on the planet.
At least, that’s my ‘educated’ view. 
I sometimes think of myself as an ‘addict’ (addicted to innovation) and that I’ve been told to talk through my addiction as part of my therapy.
Unfortunately, I’ve talked so much and listened to so much talk (call it group therapy) that I fear my addiction might soon be cured. This would be sad, indeed.
The confidential discussion that triggered this rant (I do have an eventual point, if you bear with me) was held as part of a book launch, Measured Success, edited by Peter Cebon of the Melbourne Business School.
The book itself is very informed and successfully highlights the main problems associated with innovation in Australia through case studies and commentary from experts.
In particular (pay close attention now), it makes the critical observation that innovative companies tend to focus either on the technology (the solution to the problem they’re trying to solve) or the market (what the market actually wants and how to reach that market).
It won’t come as a surprise that of the companies profiled those that focused on the market were more likely to be successful than those fixated on the technology.
So, here’s my question?
Why can’t the innovation community heed this observation?
I’m talking about the academics, the policy makers, the advisers and the consultants who have a greater need to generate passion for innovation than anyone else - because it’s their job to feed innovation (or feed off it).
Yet, time and time again the discussion rages on without true private-sector engagement, in a language that the private sector doesn’t use, in a way that would put the most afflicted insomniac into a blissful coma.
Are we too busy talking about the problem to think about the market (let alone engage with it)?
Am I alone on this? Five years ago, the cover story of Anthill’s launch edition asked the question, “Who’s carrying innovation?” Has anything changed? Are we making progress or or are we doomed to spend another five years engaged in verbal masturbation (speaking for our own gratification)?
Tags: Innovation
July 24th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Isn’t it a marketing truism that if you are sick of your message, it’s only just starting to penetrate the consciousness of others? Keep plugging away.
July 24th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
What you say is correct. I recently travelled to and from Geelong with a former schoomate who has just retired, He is part of a team that has cracked the clean coal technology. It breaks down CO2. Despite this, they cannot get a grant to build a planrt as the Fed Gov has decided to go down the route of an unproven and more expensive technology. This is typical of governments, My friend was Rhodes scholar and academic and highly skilled. I have another case where a former client is involved with a company that is making paper from banana tree trunks. They receive government grants and yet they are persisting with old technology. Meantime, the governments of Brazil, Jamaica, Malaysia and Thailand are kicking down the door of my former client trying to get access to the technology. In both of these cases, the national interest is not being served by the shortcomings in federal government innovation policy. Graham
July 24th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
James
Amen to that!
We started out five years ago proposing a service that would help universities and research organisations collectively market their research to improve the commercialisation rate of publicly-funded R&D in Australia.
It didn’t work. We started at the wrong end, on the supply side, and tried to engage in technology push. We soon realised we were wrong, and out of that realisation emerged a different view of the world: start with the markets, see what the need is, then turn around backwards, and see if the research sector has solutions to solve real problems (our “TechFast” service). Sometimes they do.
But here’s the rub: someone has to pay. The budget allocation for this sort of activity was taken away in the last Federal budget! Universities don’t see it as their job, and their tranaction cost and risk of working with small companies is too great. On the other side, small companies that know the market can’t find out what solutions might exist out there, and even if they could, don’t have the skills and patience to see it through.
Catch 22 - a broken value chain. Those who have the skills to offer solutions for market needs can’t connect up with those who have the capability to reach the market. Someone’s got to fix them, and the budget’s gone. Over to you, Dr. Cutler.
July 24th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
I’m involved in two technology business startups. One focused on putting together the market offer first, and the technology second. The other did it the other way around, spending $millions on the technology before taking it to market.
Guess which one is nearly bust, and which has one global partner on board and and about to go to trial with a second ? You guessed it - the one that designed the customer journey first and built it for real later.
The real issue here is that government shouldn’t be talking to university at all. Real innovation is happening out there in the marketplace - or rather it would be happening if not for lack-of-critical-mass issues, inexperienced-venture-capital issues, addicted-to-client-service-revenues-issues, and let’s face it no real moral or infrastructureal support for the emergence of a deep venture culture.
Innovation does not come from institutions, it comes from individuals - who need an environment which can support and harness and grow and transform their talents.
[This is all the more galling given our same-timezone status with over 60% of the world’s population (China & SEAsia), our extraordinary creative skills base, and the opportunity as a resource that those world-class universities represent.]
Yep, top-down people, not bottom up. Think Finland, think California, think Shanghai. Why can’t we do it too ?
July 24th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Some of our politicians are willing to listen. Arguments must be well articulated and, in general, come from more than one source. Think about it. If they did not listen, how could they possibly make so many mistakes? They must be listening to someone. The key is to get them to listen to well thought out arguments from multiple sources. Your magazine is a potential voice of many. Set a realistic goal, think through and publish your argument and then ask your readership to voice their opinion, with your argument as collateral, to their local politicians. Take on the challenge and allow Anthill Magazine to become a voice of change. It might even increase subscriptions.
One idea that will assist those involved in renewable energy innovations: Can the federal government influence the debate between “net” feed-in tariffs and “gross” feed-in tariffs? The difference for innovators involved in this space is huge and direction from the feds could acellerate development of technologies in this industry. I’m sure you will be able to source other topics.
July 24th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
I recently received a letter from Tim Murphy (adviser to Kim Carr) in response to an email I sent to him outlining the need to build the ‘bridge’ of communications between inventors and corporations. There is, and always has been, a cultural and communication barrier between the ‘innovators’ and the ‘makers’. Whilst one of them lives in a world where most anything is possible (the inventor) the other lives in a world of bottom line profits, unions, share holders and boards of Directors. Is there any wonder then that communication between these two disperate ‘languages’ differs so greatly??
This very issue is one that I am trying to work on, creating a common language and communication ‘portal’ for discussion to become rampant about innovations, not unions and red tape!!
The world needs more people such as you James, keep chipping away, you are being heard by the people who are not only passionate about innovation, but also by the ‘powers that be’.
David
July 24th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
We agree whole heartedly James!
There is an urgent need to actually focus on understanding the customers need first and validate the bejesus out of that, before anyone spends anymore on stuff that no one wants. What is needed is a total market focus and the ability to validate and quantify this, prior to jumping to ideas (and technology solutions). Which I am pleased to mention is what we do!
Our perspective is that this focus on ideas and technology has over time eroded many company’s confidence in innovation. So in order to reduce risk and increase success they need the evidence, facts and reason to support innovation.
In our work with some leading Biotech and IT&C companies we seek to drive alignment between market need and solution development and as a result, assist them to optimize product/service design and maximize investment payback. I know it ain’t sexy Mr Bond, but it will help you get the prize.
So to your question, is the innovation industry ready to make the move? Sadly, we have yet to see the evidence to think that it is.
All you need to do is attend some of the innovation forums that are around to hear a completely myopic and dangerous focus on idea generation - the technology focus you speak of -rather than opportunity identification.
This focus on ideas, ideas and ideas is utlimately pointless. Idea generation is easy. Very very easy. Focusing on idea generation is the crack cocaine of innovation! An easy quick hit, makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, but utlimately leaves your organisation paralysed and vulnerable.
As we touched on in our recent blog.cogentum.com.au the challenge in innovation is identifying where untapped value lies and as a result knowing what to come up with ideas for. And James, here’s the good news, some companies are starting to do it!
If Australia really wants to make its presence felt on the world stage and be known as a centre for innovation excellence, the sooner it kicks the ‘fuzzy idea generation’ habit the better.
Michael Johnson
Director
Cogentum
July 24th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
[…] his recent blog Anthill editor James Tuckerman touches on a topic we whole heartedly agree […]
July 24th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
James you are wonderful! Keep highlighting the BIG ISSUES that will predictively get obscurred again by endless expert chatter.
We are 7 years into our own innovation business “dream” & are slowly but surely changing from a techno focused business to a market focused service provider.
Some of us are heeding your observations. Don’t give up your addiction (besides you’d probably replace it with another addiction that could be more deleterious than boredom) we’d miss your refreshing, dare I say ‘innovative’ commentary.
Was the food good?
July 24th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
James I hope you are wrong and that the commitment Kim Carr made at the book launch to deliver actionable outcomes, not just more process, from the national review of innovation will be the orgasmic ejaculation from the last five years of verbal masturbation. I have my doubts.
Frankly, it is no surprise that governments and academia are all focused on formal R&D because that is an institutional activity and institutions are where governments and academia are most comfortable. Innovation is about moving outside comfort zones so, by definition, is not the natural behaviour for inherently conservative politicians, public servants and academics.
At the launch Kim Carr claimed that politicians are an excellent example of innovators because he equated innovation with problem solving. Seems to me that he fell into the common trap of thinking innovation is about invention. Evan Thornley made a bold and fairly accurate statement decrying the idea of “Innovation Policy” because innovation is a practice, a habit, a characteristic of what and how we do things not an end in itself. Evan went on to point out that our “siloed” approach to government and government policy is a centuries old model long overdue for change.
Change - isn’t that the whole point?
Innovation is about taking the risk to achieve step function change for a marked improvement in outcomes.
How to measure that improvement and identify the outcomes depends on the change being made. What is certain is that nobody makes big change without taking big risks and we know that our current form of government is not about taking big risks. (Unless you consider unpopular decisions early in the term, e.g. cancelling Commercial Ready, as a big risk of not winning the next election but, two years from now that is not likely to be a hot topic so I wouldn’t guess the Labour party is too worried, i.e. not a big risk.)
If one sees that innovation is about dramatic changes and the associated big risks then it is clear that an invention led initiative is far less likely to succeed because while it offers the tools for change it does not address the risk. A market led venture is identifying the risks and promising the change, hopefully, in a way that links the two to reduce/manage the risks and deliver the marked improvement in outcomes for users/customers/community.
For this government to achieve something worthwhile out of the innovation review the politicians must be ready to drive change and to spend government resources outside their normal comfort zone. This is the sort of behaviour that the Rudd government promised in the election campaign, now it is time to see if they will deliver, or retreat into the safe territory of incremental change in institutional initiatives.
July 24th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
We are taking a whole-of-government approach to address this issue. We’ve invited key stakeholders to collaborate in a dialogue and are now drafting our 5 point plan on promoting Innovation in Australia.
What more can you expect?!
July 24th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
James, good points and thanks for continuing to carry the flag.
Can I whine a bit more on your subject of Marketing 101? Another well established principle is that you should get to know your target market. I’m a member of the VC community — presumably a part of this ecosystem, since we are expected to fund these innovative companies), but I don’t actually know anyone from our sector whose input has been sought by Kim Carr or Terry Cutler into this Innovation Review. Our firm is a reasonably well known investor in early stage ICT companies and has written several submissions to the Innovation Review (viewable at www.tvp.com.au ). Yet no one has been contacted to give any details or further thoughts on how things might be improved.
Perhaps it’s a concern they have with us, or worse, an oversight, but i’d think we would be a good source of feedback and ideas… While I’m very glad Kim Carr is speaking with Anthill, I’d also hope they are getting input from some of the folks who are expected to “buy” the product this country is going to be selling once it figures out how to improve the innovation production.
Can’t wait to see what comes out of the Review…
July 24th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
The most frightening words in the english language are “Hi, I’m from the government, I’m here to help you!”
I have worked in technology transfer on and off for more than 20 years (Clearly I started when I was extremely Young?)
At one time I was working in Government. I tried to promote the concept that rather than funding Universities to commercialise their R&D, Governments should fund Industry and use Industry to manage the commercialization of the Universities R&D. I saw too many Uni projects miss their mark because they had no input from Industry at the very beginning. I also saw that funding University projects directly was like pouring money down a black hole. A lot went in a little came out! And thats exactly what Governments wanted because they saw this as “SAFE” funding UNIVERSITIES was like motherhood.
During this time Governments always tried to pick winners and usually ended up backing losers. Like when they gave $10 million to KODAK to support their 35 mm film plant in Victoria just as digital photography was emerging. Or more recently like giving $35 million to Toyota for Hybrids when all the “knowledgeable” world knows that Hybrids are on the way out and all electric/plugins are on the way in.
Why does anything Governments do not surprise me? Well because in our society and particularly among politicians we are a technically illiterate and “challenged” society. Where are the “scientific” Technocrats in Australia? We have been government by bloody lawyers, party Apparachniks and Economists for far too long. Hence there are people in Government and the Public Service who believed that you could put a tablet into a petrol tank of a car and improve its performance.
It is interesting to note that most Government funding for Innovation goes to large multinationals and having worked for one of the largest of all multinationals I am here to tell you that that can be an even bigger black hole than University R&D. There by lies a tale for another time. My point is that the innovation IP of Australia actually lies in SME’s and startup companies and there is a very good reason for this. SME’s need to innovate to stay alive in the short and medium term, Large multinationals do not Not, only perhaps in the long term.
So mr moneybags innovation review - devise a program that (1) fund innovation commercialisation in SME’s on a more generous support than 50:50 (2) Fund industry to fund and manage the R&D that they want to do in Universities (3) Provide the startup capital through equity needed to commercialise the SME’s innovation.
July 24th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
James
I could not agree more. It is so deeply frustrating how fixated the government and academics (with the obvious exception of Peter Cebon) are with measuring innovation by the number of patents or quality of IP. How often do we hear how great Australia is because it files so many patents? And how often does the government (and VCs) reward distinctive IP at the expense of distinctive business models or teams? Great companies are not built on IP but great people and they may or may not have IP. Australia fails in the innovation race because we do not back business models and people not because of lack of idea.
July 24th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
As a serious player in the industry side of the innovation review I am being amazed at the one sided approach being taken. Everything wonderful comes from Universities and CRCs - apparently. Commercialisation has to be the first focus. Now if you had a program that focused on successful commercialisation and allowed some R&D with proof of concept activities gee that would achieve results.
Two for instances:
Client one - large Commercial Ready Grant, employed additional 80 staff, and multi million dollar sales towards the end of the project. Makes Toyota’s $70m look poor.
Client two - scientists coming from the US to contribute to the project, company has significant ‘world cure for cancer’ target, major player in the scientific medical field. Grant withheld.
I just struggle to see any sibstance to the government’s approach. Why cancel a scheme that focuses on commercialisation before you finish the review? I don’t suppose we can expect anything in the package to mirror was was deleted.
Certainly gets to be a concern when the minister has someone read his speech.
July 24th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
You state the problem, right up front, and it is: “And it was held for a small group of innovation experts, mostly academics and policy makers. ”
As one of the very few innovative academics that I’ve ever met once said:
“Those that can, do.
Those that can’t, teach
Those that can’t teach, teach teachers (or become policy makers).”
July 24th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
James,
I think people need to learn the difference between experts “at” and experts “on”. Here I quote from economist Robin Hanson:
‘A prosperous and successful plumber is an expert “at” plumbing. Someone who is a good source for accurate information on plumbing is an expert “on” plumbing.’
Hanson was actually making the case for experts “on”, but I reckon in (Australian) innovation we have these in abundance. It is the experts “at” that are missing – ie the frigging innovators! (in fact, exactly the same thing applies to entrepreneurship).
You don’t need to be a great tennis player to be a great coach, however….. something’s wrong when the majority of advice is given by people who’ve never actually played the game!
July 24th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
You may wish to mention my closing comments from the audience on the night
However as contained in my submission to the Innovation review considereration should be given to Terry Cutler’s remarks re the results of the computer analysis and the polorisation of results with CSIRO being the most balanced.
My submission provided the following suggestions along those lines
Maybe cut the time frame from 5 years to 1 term of government
Refer below
• There is general confusion over the terms:- entrepreneur, innovator, marketing, selling, negotiation, distinctive competence, competitive advantage within the general population, media and those with no skills nor experience in innovation
• Innovation skills and experience should be derived from repeated ( over time) reproduced (over space) and scaled personal involvement
• There is considerable positioning of academics, bureaucrats, self appointed experts, teachers, trainers, industry leaders, policy makers, in new policy initiatives. It appears very few of them have commercialized or been part of a team to commercialise 7 or more products. Their positioning is based on having read, taught, consulted or, been trained by a multinational
• CSIRO is competent and should be recognized for the royalties and the products they have commercialised. AusIndustry plays a major role in idea due diligence and screening
3. Hypothesis
It is not possible to change the current level of innovation value addition to the Australian economy by a factor of 10 times by 2023
4. Proposed Experiment to prove the hypothesis
• A Budget allocation to invite scientists to submit proposals for a Social Science investigation over 4 years to prove the hypothesis and investigate the observations given above.
• A budget allocation, over 4 years, to establish a prototype national data base, within 4 years, that will be able to measure and report on the Economic Value Add (EVA) and the Market Value Add (MVA), on a per annum basis, of innovation in the past 10 years, currently and into the future. EVA and MVA are defined by Stern Stewart, Alfred Rapport and others.
• Allocate a budget, over 4 years, to select a committee of experienced innovators who have been directly involved in commercializing at least 10 products in their careers. They are to meet every 6 months with the data base designers and the Academic team to review and assist in asking the key questions.
• In year 5 all three teams to publish a joint paper to prove or disprove the hypothesis.
July 24th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
James (buddy) keep the dream alive !
Agree that there is way too much rhetoric, has been since I co-launched the first national innovation program in 1995 off the back of the Karpin report … remember him … Mr Butler seems to be doing the same all over again.
More seriously though, and all due respect, Government, most Academics and most Consultants DON’T (I’m not afraid to say it as some one has to) know or understand that little R (Research) + medium sized D (Development) + really big C (Every thing to do with commercialisation) = Innovation and those who do this are called intra/entrepreneurs. The GACs tend to have a lot of information (only) about either of the three, but NO practical experience in ALL three together, so they are the wrong people full stop to be setting any direction. Hence the endless rhetoric.
Its not above white coats in labs, cool technology that no one wants, its about people you and I don’t know who see a gap in the market and DO something about it through shear bloody bravery and risk taking, ie mortgage their family house and launch their new product or business.
So, unfortunately, Terry’s job is already doomed by nature of who he is employed by (G of GACs). Granted he’ll state the above and recite the need to ‘meet market needs’ (der !), but as Ross mentions above, they need to ‘protect’ their white elephants (CSIRO, CRCs, UNis … ) because voters naively think that all innovation and technology comes from such esteemed places, but really these white elephants are all about ‘job safety’ and cultivating ‘fonts of unused theory’ … that’s cool, but its not about innovation and never will be.
CRCs in particular have never been reviewed for their success on any level for bring their supposed technology to market … der … why not ?
So, lets not worry about Terry and his good men and lets all work collaboratively and just DO it … Nike knows. I mean, who is going to say that their venture would never of happened without a GAC … no one.
July 24th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
I applied for help from COMET and Smart Water and got nothing. I went to IP Australia and they sent me to a private company who said they would help me ‘market my product’ if I paid them but I’d still have to help them with the correspondence. (Great). The best advice I got was from a supportive client who suggested I ask the ATO for a tax break - I’m still waiting for a private ruling on that one. Everyone has their hand out for your money, but no-one seems interested in actually putting their hand out to help.
July 24th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Innovation has to have a commercial outcome or else it’s just some crack pot idea. Here are the problems with innovation in Australia (from my perspective of course):
1. Lack of risk taking. Australian business people are loathe to take risks. Innovation requires leadership and real leadership is risky by definition. You cannot lead an industry and not take risks.
2. Lack of venture capital. Even great ideas need capital to execute commercialisation.
3. Lack of intrapenuership and small business incubation in Australia’s largest companies. Again, the whole risk aversity, tall poppy syndrome thing. Australian businesses need to model themselves more like global market leaders that thrive because of thier innovation (like Cisco, IBM, GE, Boeing, BMW, Google, etc).
4. Lack of national vision. What is Australia’s future (other than natural resources)?
Australia doesn’t have a lack of innovation. It lacks the platforms for commercialisation of innovation.
July 25th, 2008 at 8:16 am
About the only people I know who talk about innovation are politicians (who prefer buzzwords over action, because doing nothing is their best strategy for avoiding failure), academics (who love talking about abstract concepts) and the media (which includes Anthill, frankly).
It is utterly pointless.
It is also pointless to wait around for a government handout; to complain about VCs who “don’t get it”; or to build a better mousetrap that nobody buys.
It won’t help you.
To build successful businesses, the rules are simple:
(1) find problems that are not solved, and that people want solved;
(2) figure out if you can solve them with some competitive advantage; and
(3) work like crazy to gather the people and resources you need to make it happen.
And, as Charles Eames once said, “Innovate as a last resort”
You need to be competitive and persistent far more than you need to be innovative.
About the best thing the government can do is get out of the way.
July 25th, 2008 at 10:24 am
We are a wonderful democratic nation but we have a few cultural challenges. Somehow the divide between government, academia and the crass old commercial world where people just want to make a profit (that ugly word!) seems to be broadening. By making a profit these capitaists happen to not only survive but they actually employ people and quite often well trained people and even sometimes some academics who think that making a profit might help them too. Somehow we have to bridge these gaps, open our minds to the reality that as one nation we all need to pull together - crass commercialistaion is not only inevitable but fundamental to this nation’s future. Innovation is so generic that unless one moves on to being specific, I agree with James it is all boring. High risk, high tech innovation is what we all are enthusiastic about - one can not achieve that just in an academioc world not just in a commercial enterrprise - its all about pulling together and balancing the equation.
I sure hope Terry doesn’t support the notion that all we have to do is more ‘research’ - just kidding Terry!
July 25th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Talk around the camps so far in relation to expected changes seems to hint at University and institutionalized groups being the big winners in the future, which for Biotech etc has certain advantages but overall for the ICT industry is going to do nothing to support/develop/focus Australia’s small but world beating ICT Development firms. I am constantly amazed when I am in Singapore how integrated government sees itself in respect to developing companies and idea that have world class potential and the best our government can do is to help with the cost of sending us overseas to source partners over there!
I have spent the past seven years involved with the commercialization of a product which is not only the most awarded and innovative software of its kind ever to come out of Australia but recently become the fastest growing software in its field. I participated in all the ‘right’ government funded ICT commercialization courses held by law/accounting/finance companies who would not recognize innovation if it bit them on the proverbial and presented by individuals whose average age was about 22 (guess they drew the short straw for those assignments). What I did learn from those sessions was that only an addicted adrenalin nut would obsess over creating things to make a difference when the real money was being spent on sending these nuts to carefully crafted but ultimately pointless sessions. I agree with Jamie, partly, in that Government indeed needs to get out of the way totally (and spend future innovations money on useful things like capital infrastructure) and leave innovation to the obsessed or alternatively, stop meandering around the outside, set up shop and become our largest VC. It does not take a genius like me (not really, just seeing if you were still with me here) to know that if a government the size of Australia was to fund innovation directly by offering credit and support in return for part ownership that we would lead the world in ICT innovation within a decade. Don’t get me wrong I am all for separation of Market and State normally but the reality is that if changes are not made, here at home it is the Governments of countries that have successfully made this transition and the multi-nationals that will ensure that we spend the rest of our days digging for coal!
Now we are a small company of 8, holding patented technology recently picked up by one of the world’s largest software companies, and agreements in place for our software to reach 30 million users this year alone so we did the hard yards and have never received a single development dollar directly from the Federal government, but I also know that had the government stepped up earlier we would be a company of 8000 with offices around the globe.
PS, we announce the launch of our Singapore office next week!
July 28th, 2008 at 5:39 am
I have had to do several trips to the US to get interest and try to attain funding. UNSW has been rejected twice for its funding application blending our technology with high lift wind turbine technology. We simply are unable to get funded due to either private sector lack of vision or technically illiterate people in government departments. Our technologies are now getting responses in the US from leading experts but not from any sector in Australia. It seems in Australia there are many bloated bureacracies peopled by all the wrong people.
We make the claim that our technologies combined can save Australia (and the US) 10% of its annual electricity use. Is not just the claim alone worthy of investigation?
July 30th, 2008 at 12:04 am
Now that is what you call a blog topic!
August 1st, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Why can’t the innovation community heed the observation?
Probably because of the same reason that 90% of the above comments didn’t answer your question? Both parties are too busy telling each other what it should be about?
Few are listening, questioning, observing & gathering insights into why the innovation community think the way they think & then using that information to change minds.
My bet is that you won’t be able to change minds anyway (isn’t marketing 101 about not trying to go against consumer perception?). You’ve essentially identified the gap in the market (Steven Brady’s perfect comment), if I was you I’d spend my time making those in the “innovation community” irrelevant & just finding & working with those who get it to make them a bigger part of the pie. Certainly less frustrating?
Jake Burton the CEO at Burton spends a minimum of a 100 days a year out there boarding, understanding his consumers, talking to his riders, using his own innovations & working out whats needed to improve. That’s how you get strong consumer insights & can develop great products. Do you really want to spend that comparable amount of time at dinners with govenerment types & consultants in order to get to the break through? I suspect you’d far rather go out for dinner with people who “get it” & have fun coming up with ideas that blindside entire industries.
I hope you read this & then get on with your great publication & working with some truly great companies our there who get it & will drive innovation e.g. TSG & point blank refuse to go to any more government garbbage “consult off the record” dinners. It’s killing you man…
Cheers,Yoda