Apple’s Marketing Strategy
Last week a collegue of mine Randy Price made the comment that ”
I wonder why I thought that Apple had an outstanding social media strategy? (when in fact it’s quite the opposite)
Jobs, fake or not, definitely abides by an old school, competitive, close to the vest, command and control, information is power mantra. However, it occurred to me that the reason it appeared that Apple was employing a successful social conversation with its constituents was because of the extremely, bordering on obsessive, loyal fan boy (and girl) following.
Could it be that Apple as a culture simply listens more effectively through traditional/conventional business communication mechanisms? That combined with the key success factor of moving quickly to actualize those implicit and explicit customer needs. It’s the combination that is crucial in my book. HHhmmm.
Well, I certainly hope that the new media technologies will not overwhelm the CMO who has less than 2 years to make an impact into being distracted by the shiny new communications tactics and forget “it’s the product (or service) stupid”.
My response was:
I agree with you about Jobs and apple, but I think the biggest part of their success is their hiring process. They screen applicants that are knowledgeable and seem to have a passion for the brand. This is very similar to what Starbucks was doing for a few years, but their growth was so quick that there was a lack of quality control on hiring new employees. The bottom line is apple sells the “experience” and does it very well. A lot of companies try to imitate their system but are unsuccessful because they fail to adopt the system as a whole and only imitate what they see as being successful.
Rather than seeing the company as a whole, managers at apple have turned to “core” competencies, “critical” resources, and “key” success factors. In fact, it has become a far more central component of competitive advantage than most realize. Apple’s strategy is important because discrete activities often affect one another. A sophisticated sales force, for example, confers a greater advantage when the company’s product embodies premium technology and its marketing approach emphasizes customer assistance and support. A production line with high levels of model variety is more valuable when combined with an inventory and order processing system that minimizes the need for stocking finished goods, a sales process equipped to explain and encourage customization, and an advertising theme that stresses the benefits of product variations that meet a customer’s special needs. Such complementarities are pervasive in strategy. Although some strategy among activities is generic and applies to many companies, the most valuable fit is strategy-specific because it enhances a position’s uniqueness and amplifies trade-offs. Check out Michael Porter’s article in the Harvard Business review on “What is Strategy?” 1996.
Any thought’s? Leave a comment.
