Mike de Block

I love Microsoft oh no, Google no no, I love Apple yes Apple, no I Love??

For all you out there who love Apple, let me see your digital hands? Wooo, easy on those hands, oke everybody is a fan.  Probably, you now belong to a group that has been growing at a rapid pace in the last decade. However, why are brands only likable for a certain period and is this phenomena not lasting? Think about, in the beginning of this era it were the saints from Microsoft, afterwards the hot shots from Google crushed Bill and his friends. However, the snipers from Apple took-over and let them eat their dust. Alongside Apple, King Mark and his wannabe friends from Facebook recently joined Apple. However, King Mark is more successful with an estimated (Forbes) fortune of € 6.9 Billion then Steven Jobs with “only” € 6.9 Billion.

Off course Wikipedia, Myspace, Hyves, Flickr, Digg, Twitter, Foursquare made their mark, but the reason why Facebook at this point is still on the good side of their tipping-point is, because King Mark still values his 500 friends. However, his friends will not be satisfied with new FB services (Facebook phone or the extensive social gaming platform, since 2 out of 5 FB users plays games), since they want to engage.

You will wonder why, maybe because of:

- The shift of control

- Power to the people

- Caring is the new selling

- We live in the abundance economy and not in the scarcity economy anymore.

- Return on investment is converted into return on interaction

Probably, all the statements make sense, but the answer remains no. Since, I wondered myself as well and skimmed some articles from the so-called marketing guru’s it actually was dead simple why the likability of companies is so delicate. The answer is that we want to be part of a brand-lover group, but don’t want to be part of a mass brand-lover group.  Once to many people like a brand or a product, you won’t mention that you use that product, since it’s not unique and prevents you to walk in front of the herd as you walk in between them. In short, we want to be perceived as the “happy few” who are aware of a brand or product that is “loveworthy”, but once you are joined by others, you rather look for another option in the pursuit for (temporary) uniqueness. 

Where it all come down to, is that niches in every way you can imagine will takeover. Did you played Monopoly in your youth, don’t think you will play that game with your children as it will be converted in nichepoly. 

You might wonder, why are there only tech companies listed and none of the traditional companies like Coca-Cola, Starbucks, Wholefoods, Disney or Nike. It’s for the simple reasons that tech companies are more sensible to the online developments as the impact from offline developments is decreasing. 

Google for example is forced to stand in the spotlights, since the brand lost their unique features. The “Google new” platform is emphasizing all their apps, but I miss the storytelling from Google. The creator from Gmail, Paul Bucheit even said

“I believe many people were (and still are) significantly undervaluing Facebook equity. It has the potential to be worth more than Google,”

However, I hate pointing my finger without mentioning a solution or putting some light at the end of the tunnel. At TED 2009, Simon Sinek explains in this movie (long, but definitely worth viewing), how simple it can be to remain the unique characteristics of a brand that appeal to each brand-lover group. In short, the shift from mass brand-lovers to niche brand-lovers is thus a key development. 

Apple however seems to be inviolable. For example, the “leave us alone” statement from Steve Jobs to a student from Long Island University. The student sent an e-mail to Jobs, since she didn’t received a reply on numerous e-mail that she sent to Apple’s pr-department.

However, the negative buzz that could be derived from this conversation did not happen. Moreover, all the rules that apply for all other companies, like power to the consumer doesn’t apply to Apple. Nevertheless, customer care is key for Apple and it’s for this reason that the reply from Steve Jobs doesn’t make sense. The customers from Apple are creating the buzz, so why ignoring a customer request? Are these the first sign of the saturation of Apple?

No, according to Rishad Tabaccowala  ”Apple and Google are similar, since they both very well know what people want! They both define beauty as sex, as they are possessed by quality. However, what really makes the difference is that they let there customers feel like God.” In short, as we are connected to everybody on this globe, Apple and Google achieved to create a need for uniqueness, which is scarce.

At this point King Mark has not really feel his 500 million friends like god, but sooner or later he has to. Facebook then would be the platform for all niches to be unique within their groups and thus create an abundance of options in the consumers pursuit for uniqueness. Would this mean that Apple and Google are then actually bypassed by Facebook?

Anyway, we should question ourselves whether we love a brand based on abundance or scarcity. My vote is for abundance, what’s yours?