Very interesting post
I wonder what would have happened if they had positioned it as a multi-purpose device from the beginning the way Apple and Amazon did. Would it have succeeded then? The logic of the post suggests so… But it is an interesting thing to contemplate because perhaps it was doomed from the start no matter how B&N marketed it. Would consumers have wanted to buy cutting edge technology from B&N rather than Amazon or Apple, assuming all else equal (i.e. same price, etc.)? Or would that feel like buying a piece of art from a grocery store? Maybe B&N was not the right ambassador for the tablet given its brand in consumers’ minds.
Interesting post! I was thinking along the same lines and wrote about how The New York Times is a loser in this industry.
My question to you is why will Politico win versus other digital media companies who follow the same business model (i.e. they have the same pace, bite-sized chunks, native advertisements, etc.)? It is a very competitive space with an easily replicable formula (if not readership), and I wonder what will make Politico succeed above and beyond the rest of the digital media outlets. Perhaps it comes down to the quality of reporting and access to information (i.e. ability to break news stories).
Very interesting post, Sherry!
Following the theory of disruptive innovation, I wonder if LinkedIn will one day be vulnerable to an upstart company who goes after the lower value segment of LinkedIn’s customers (presumably those who spend the least amount of money on LinkedIn’s products). I imagine these would be smaller companies who prefer a lower price point for recruiting services and don’t have recurring recruiting needs. How will LinkedIn defends itself against such an attack?