The subversion of smart TV to mature TV companies is very similar to the subversion of smartphones to function machines. It may be a re-enactment of the classic 'innovator's dilemma'. History is always repeated again and again, traditional TV manufacturers look It is continuing to repeat the mistakes of Nokia, Motorola and those failed hard drive manufacturers, thinking about Nokia from such a brilliant industry hegemon to being forced to sell, only a few years. We have seen and may soon see mature TV manufacturers Some failures and bigger failures, if they don't have to deal with destructive innovations.
Why is 'smart' TV subverting the TV industry, and ULED, OLED are not important technologies?
ULED, OLED innovations are continuations or breakthrough improvements in the user's original performance metrics. These improvements are generally successful for mature companies, no matter how early or late they start, because the resource processes and values of these companies are It is very suitable for these improvements, they also understand the very clear needs of existing users.
However, intelligent functions are not continuous technological innovation or breakthrough technological innovation for TV users. They are not further optimized on indicators such as screen/display effects, but enter another curve, which is destructive technology. With smart TV Development, the user's most interesting attribute and attribute sequence for the TV set has changed.
Users have always been more concerned about the TV display, screen size and quality, the appearance of the TV, sound effects, etc. But after the emergence of smart TV, users began to 'slow' to change consumer preferences, in the past 3 years, In particular, emerging TV manufacturers are beginning to emphasize more about the online content of their products, how many video sites are aggregated, and how powerful artificial intelligence and voice interaction.
Changes in user preferences have changed the competitive base of the industry, and the reasons for this change are two:
1. The main reason is that the main performance indicators that the original users are more concerned about are gradually satisfied. In terms of size, in the past ten years, the average screen size of the color TV market has increased by 1 inch per year. In 2017, 2017 is already 55-inch and 65-inch TV. The new living room has the highest proportion. Considering the size of the house, this size should have reached the mainstream level of user demand. The development trend of imaging technology, liquid crystal materials, process-induced thinness and so on has also appeared.
Another sign also shows that TV manufacturers are moving to higher levels to solve the problem of goods in the low-end market users to a certain extent. For example, ULED, OLED, 4K8K, etc.
2. Because in people's lives, intelligent, online, and Internet are big trends, people are getting used to these things.
Of course, mature companies will continue to outperform emerging companies in terms of imaging technology and screens. But when the development of this technology has exceeded the needs of mainstream customers, when both mature and emerging companies can exceed user needs in these areas, ' Better (continuously better)' has no meaning to the user.
And for the new important attribute 'smart', because it has not yet reached the user's needs, it will gradually become the main influencing factor of the user's purchasing decision. Mature institutions will not destroy themselves, they will impose destructive technology as continuous innovation technology. The product cannot be fully utilized and exerted its destructiveness. Therefore, it is impossible to exceed or even reach the level of destructive new enterprise in this property.
Look at smart TVs made by mature companies. You will understand this. They first launched smart TVs, but now they are not as good at startups as this. This will eventually lead to their failure.
This is Christensen's summary of 'subversive (or destructive) innovation', and this innovation will lead to the failure of mature companies.
Why don't you think that the TV industry is being subverted? The TV industry seems to have been subverted like a smartphone.
Although the emergence of emerging brands such as Xiaomi TV, LeTV and Storm TV has emerged, it seems that China's TV industry is still mature and more powerful, and it is not seen to be subverted.
This is the most critical issue. This is why mature TV manufacturers and emerging TV manufacturers have made too optimistic and pessimistic mistakes in the situation. In 2017, I communicated with executives of emerging TV companies. They even think that they are mature. TV manufacturers can't beat.
The reason for this situation is that the TV has not yet changed a certain 'X Booth' from home appliances to consumer electronics products, so the speed of product replacement is not fast enough, and the old and new changes in the entire industry pattern are not so fast. Of course, the size of the TV also limits the update speed.
But even so, Xiaomi TV has become the number one sales in a single month after the first generation of products went on the market. Of course, the smartphone industry is much faster.
In 2007, the iPhone and Android were released. In 2012, these two add up to more than 50% of the global market share (considering the speed of development in different places, the actual speed is faster in developed countries alone.) The following picture is clearer. Seeing the subversion of smartphones, the market share of traditional mobile phone manufacturers and emerging mobile phone manufacturers is changing.
Let's calculate a math problem and we can understand why the Chinese TV industry seems to be 'better'.
The total number of home TVs in China is about 535 million units. In the last 10 years, the annual TV sales volume is between 40 million and 50 million, which is equivalent to 11-13 years to complete an update.
Looking at the mobile phone again, in March 2009, China’s mobile phone users reached 670 million. In 2009, China’s mobile phone sales in the whole year were 157 million units; in 2010, it was 246 million units; in 2011, it was 280 million units; in 2012, it was 2.6 million units; One hundred million, of which 169 million are smart phones. In the most important years of China's mobile phone intelligence, all mobile phones can be updated once in three years (of course, the actual situation is that mobile phone ownership is also growing).
Therefore, the 'deportation' of China's mature TV manufacturers is only slower. This is a bad thing, because the water temperature becomes slower and less noticeable; it is also a good thing, if we can find this destructive change and be correct in time. If the way is handled, the time left for us is longer.
If you don't do this, mature TV companies will be very dangerous.
The failure of mature companies, such as the failure of Motorola in the process of simulating mobile phones to digital mobile phones, the failure of Nokia from digital mobile phones to smart phones, such as this, not because the company is not well managed, but because they are too obsessed with continuous innovation. And breakthrough innovation, ignoring the arrival of a destructive new S curve, or using the wrong approach.
So what is the right way?
1. The most important thing is to set up an independent new institution to deal with destructive innovation.
Establish an independent new organization to define, promote, sell and operate real smart TV. An organization can't destroy itself. Due to resource dependence, mature companies will move up to higher levels along with continuous innovation and breakthrough innovation. In the value network, this is rooted in the processes and values of enterprise RPV. So we can see that mature TV manufacturers still pay more attention to display technology, rather than destructive 'intelligence'.
Processes and values that are appropriate for accomplishing a certain type of task mean that it is not suitable for another type of task. So enter resources rather than processes and values for this new independent organization, so that it is not affected by mature companies. Form your own processes and values in a destructive environment, organize the ordering of your product characteristics with the needs of users in this environment, and use this organization to compete with emerging companies.
2. Unwavering execution1, and this independent institution must run in a state of entrepreneurship and lean entrepreneurship.
New independent institutions will encounter various difficulties in the process of advancement. This institution should participate in market competition in the state of entrepreneurship, otherwise it will not succeed. It is necessary to make profits as soon as possible (more on this later), so as not to be halfway. give up.
3. Destructive products will redefine major distribution channels
Since users view destructive products differently than before, due to the 'discipline' and resource/cost dependence of the original distribution channels, destructive products tend to redefine the main distribution channels. On smart TV, we have seen online channels. Glowed a new radiance.
4. Based on destructive characteristics 'smart', based on destructive characteristics 'smart', based on destructive characteristics 'smart'
The TV product of this independent new organization is to be 'smart' (the market will teach it as well), and its characteristics are only one (extremely speaking) is 'smart'. The smart TV industry has not yet seen a truly revolutionary product. Revolutionary interactive products, starting with disruptive technologies, starting with the most important contradiction on smart TV (using the more sophisticated smart TV in the most relaxed and casual way), creating revolutionary products in a destructive environment, may succeed (We simply write the word 'smart' for simplicity. But when we consider the product, we need to start from the task that the user has to complete in this range, not from the 'smart' attribute)
Business model innovation is important, or is smart TV itself important?
Mature TV manufacturers have set up independent new institutions to 'operate' smart TVs. Is this OK? I don't think so.
1. The skin is not there, the hair will be attached
The subversive nature of smart TV will lead to the decline or disappearance of mature manufacturers' hardware sales, which is the main battlefield of this subversive battle.
And the 'operation' does not help the main battlefield. Second, if the main battlefield fails, there is no user, what can be operated. So the establishment of an independent letter agency to 'operate' the smart TV, is not a positive response to subversion. Method.
2. Many are renting and renting
At present, the mature TV manufacturers' 'operating' smart TV organizations use many methods to rent and rent their own smart TV users. This practice does not make much sense besides bringing in income. It can't even be cultivated. The team understands the user's ability to 'smart' related requirements.
If you do this, emerging TV companies can be dangerous
At this stage, is there still a chance for the newly entered smart TV companies? I think there is. Because as mentioned earlier, the industry is slow to develop and there is still time; secondly, mature manufacturers have not yet taken the right approach. Third, due to a serious mistake in the early emerging TV companies, it also gave up some market opportunities.
What wrong practices did the early emerging TV companies take? What would make the previous and future emerging TV companies fail?
Is it 'competing with mature companies in the continuous market'? First of all, this is of course a wrong approach. Historical experience and theoretical analysis tell us that continuous technological innovation has always been a successful enterprise to succeed, and emerging companies adopt such practices. (For example, producing larger TVs, launching OLED TVs earlier, etc.) is difficult to achieve success. But the emerging companies in the TV industry have not done so. The TV industry has been developing for a long time, and emerging companies are no longer doing this silly. It’s a thing.
The most serious mistake made by some emerging companies is that they do not recognize the unique characteristics of the TV industry, that is, the development speed is relatively slow (remember the 11- to 13-year figures obtained before). Therefore, some enterprises want to end the battle as soon as possible. Scale subsidies, selling smart TVs at a loss. This short-term allows them to gain a certain market share, but because the industry characteristics have not been changed, and everyone can't continue to sell at a loss for many years, this approach gives these companies There was a big financial problem and eventually led to failure.
If you have to fight a long-term battle, don't use the blitzkrieg method. Moreover, we must understand that market share is not a motivation, and it will not be very self-reinforcing and maintaining (unless it is a network effect product, such as WeChat). Market share, to have a clear purpose, such as to obtain scarce market resources, it makes sense, market share can last. Otherwise, even if we want to get financial support through market share (regardless of where it comes from), Because of the relatively slow pace of development of the television industry, the bubble burst.
So my suggestion is that in the subversive battlefield of smart TV, emerging companies must not rush to 'losing' sales. Concentrate on products that are based on 'smart', do business with a mindset and methods, and do good products and sales. There will be opportunities in the future, don't worry too much, and don't worry too much.