Innovation Needs Less Logic, and More Magic.
創新需要多點魔法，少點邏輯
分享者/陳曉峰
原文網址：Link
John Kearon在本月的Market Leader中發表了一篇關於在大公司中，「行銷科學」的崛起如何妨礙而非幫助「創新」的文章，並強調大公司中缺乏新產品類別的發想。這些大公司的富邏輯、精密且嚴謹的資料庫系統能夠幫助他們在現有的產品類別中深耕現有的品牌，但無法創造新的產品類別。發展出新產品類別的創新者們通常都是由小公司發跡，如：紅牛Red Bull，Amazon，eBay，以及Facebook。
他同時也提出聯合利華(Unilever)等領導品牌所成立的這類精密的「全球創新中心」並未達成預期的表現。他表示：「將最好的人才與資源集中在創新中心的想法並沒有甚麼爭議。唯一的問題是，將近20年來，這個創新中心很明顯地並沒有幫助Unilever在新產品類別中創造出新品牌以幫助公司獲利。
所以領導者麼該如何做出真正的產品類別革新呢？我認為我們需要更多「魔法」，而非邏輯。
1.記住，行銷研究只是後照境
就像一台車的後照鏡，行銷研究只能告訴你你是從那裡來而非你要去哪。他同時提出：「試著研究新的產品類別的概念幾乎是不可能的，因為很難去預測人們會不會採用新的行為模式。」他繼續引用一些一開始並不被看好的創新，包括Sony的隨身聽(Walkman)、貝禮詩(Bailey's)的香甜奶酒(Irish Cream)、便利貼(Post-Its)、沛綠雅(Perrier)(起初在英國並不受歡迎)、紅牛能量飲料(Red Bull)以及提款機(Cashpoint machines)等作為例子。許多大公司過度依賴行銷研究來辨認以及測試創新的想法。
2.盡早訂出原型
而John沒有提到的是當雅特‧富萊(Art Fry)發明便利貼時，他確實是有從消費者身上得到有用的資訊。然而在焦點團體訪問時，由於還只是紙上談兵故倍受抨擊；再他將產品原型做出來並發送給3M的秘書試用後，這概念便成功了。因此，當有新產品時，你最好更專注在產品原型而非測試該產品的構想。
3. 遵從你對產品的熱情
在觀察大多數重大的發行時，你會發現背後都有一位對產品懷有巨大熱情的發明家。而這些想法並不總是從消費者需求分析帶出的一系列富邏輯性的步驟，緊接著創意概念的發想。
4. 要回歸本土創新嗎?
John指出聯合利華全球創新中心之所以缺乏產品類別創新的主因在於聯合利華的創新中心雖備受讚譽，但所有聯合利華的新類別品牌(亮而潔(Cif)、Viennetta、多芬(Dove)以及Axe)都是在創新中心成立之前發展至市面上的，創新中心不過是單純的複製了品牌建構經驗。這是非常有趣的觀點。在我過去的經驗中，全球創新中心曾做出許多很棒的東西，比方說多芬「真正的美(Real Beauty)」的行銷活動、奧妙(Omo)「髒污是好的(Dirt is Good)」的行銷活動以及Axe-Effect的活動。然而當仔細檢視他們在單一市場中所確實發展出的創新概念時，John確實地指出：「夢龍(Magnum)、Impulse以及Lynx是在1980年代發行的，而當時的聯合利華是非常分權且自由的組織，且市場也給予很大的自主性。」
在這些案例中，一些當地的小夥子發想出一個概念並迅速的將它做出來後再從市場學習，且他們並不需要跟一關又一關的測試奮鬥。此外，因為這些想法是較本土的，因此他們並不用背負必須發展為全球熱賣商品的壓力。
是時候重新激發本土創新，解散全球創新中心，改成較小的全球團隊來做創新了嗎？這些中心會比較像是創投基金，在世界各地尋找很棒的想法並資助其成長於國際間，還是這只是個一廂情願的想法呢？
結論是，若想要創造新的產品類別，我們並不需要太多邏輯，並且得減少那些複雜的量化研究模型。相反的，我們需要的是更多的「魔法」，讓人們自由的遵照他們的直覺以及對產品的熱情。此外，企業也可以開始注重激發本土創意。
Great article in this month's Market Leader by John Kearon, on how the rise of "marketing science" has hurt rather than help innovation in big companies. He highlights the lack of new category creation by these big companies. Their logical, sophisticated, rigorous and data-based systems have helped them farm existing brands in established categories, but not create whole new categories. The innovators that create new category brands tend to be in smaller start-ups: think Red Bull, Amazon, eBay, Facebook.
He also suggests that the sophisticated, global "innovation centres" set up by Unilever and other leading companies have not delivered as much as expected: "The logic of taking your best people, focusing serious resources and centralising the efforts within an innovation centre, is hard to argue with. The only problem is that for almost 20 years it has patently failed to help Unilever originate the sort of new category brands that deliver the majority of the company's profits."
So, what can leaders do to create true category innovation? I propose we need more magic, and less logic.
1. Remember, research is a rear-view mirror
John reminds us that research, like a rear-view mirror in a car, can only tell you where you've come from, not where you're going (a bit funny coming from a guy who runs a quantiative research firm, Brainjuicer!). He says "Trying to research new category ideas is pretty near impossible since people are notoriously bad at predicting whether they will adopt new behaviours." He goes on to quote examples of successful innovations that bombed in initial research, including the Sony Walkman, Bailey's Irish Cream, Post-Its, Perrier (in the UK), Red Bull and Cashpoint machines." Many big companies over-rely on research to both identify and test new innovation ideas.
2. Prototype as soon as possible
What John doesn't mention is that the inventor of the Post-It, Art Fry (left), did get useful consumer feedback on his new idea. It bombed in focus groups when tested as a written concept ("Anyone want a bit of paper you can stick and re-stick?"). What worked better was prototyping the product and giving it to secretaries at 3M. They loved them. So, with a new product you're better off doing less concept testing and more prototyping.
3. Follow your product passion
Look at most stories of breakthrough innovation and you find an inventor with a passion for a product idea. And these ideas don't tend to come from a logical, sequential process starting with analysis of consumer needs and followed by idea generation.
4. Bring back local innovation?
John points the finger of blame for Unilever's lack of category innovation at global innovation centres, saying "All Unilever's new category brands (e.g. Cif, Viennetta, Dove and Axe) were invented before its much-lauded and copied move to innovation centres in the 1990s."
This is a really, really interesting point. In my experience, global innovation centres do a lot of great work. For example, the global roll-out of Dove's Campaign for Real Beauty, Omo's Dirt is Good campaign and the Axe Effect work. However, when you look at many succesful category innovations they have indeed started in one market. John rightly points out that "Magnum, Impulse and Lynx, were launched in the 1980s when Unilever was a highly decentralised, federal organisation where marketers had a great deal of autonomy".
In these cases a local dude came up with an idea and tried it out quickly, learning in the marketplace. They didn't have to fight their way through round after round of "stage-gate testing, perfecty illustrated by cartoon genius Tom Fishburne below. Also, as the ideas were local ideas, there was much less pressure on it to needing to be a blockbuster success that justified global investment.
Is it time to re-ignite local innovation, dis-band the global innovation centres, and have smaller global teams in charge of innovation expansion? These centres would work more like venture capital funds, searching the world for great new ideas, and funding their international expansion. Or is this just wishful thinking in today's global world?
In conclusion, to create new category brands we need less logic, cutting the complex quant pre-testing models. What we need is more magic, with people free to follow their intuition and product passion. And it could be time for companies to look at reigniting local innovation... more on that later.
