If you could invent a flying car that could also change into a boat on water and return effortlessly to its origonal road going mode wouldn't you think "hey I'm onto something here?". If you invented a candy that could play a tune and cause all around you to spontaneously, and in unison, break into a song and dance wouldn't you think "hey I'm definately onto something here?".
Now meet Caractacus Potts, inventor of both, clearly a genius but as a businessman failed to market these world beating products. Lets look at one of his real marketing gaffs. In a demonstration of his candy products - "Toot Sweets" he captured the imagination of the manufacturing company (Scrumptious Sweets) only to let the opportunity go due to an invasion of dogs who had been attracted by the whistles the candy was making. Now Caractacus missed two opportunities here. First the fact that dogs were attracted singles out a market for Candy eating dog walkers. Well defined target markets are important in any marketing activity. Secondly Caractacus was dating the factory owner's daughter. Surely that is a relationship marketing activity just begging to be exploited. But he didn't do anything and Toot sweets came to nothing.
Next he invented a car. A flying, floating car. Do I need to say anymore? Who wants one of those?..."yes please" I hear. "Where can I buy one?" I hear - you can't - Caractacus only made one. This one worked perfectly and served him well. Why weren't the large motor conglomorates all over this? Again we have to point out Caractacus's lack of marketing savvy - he should have licensed the cr#p out of his design and lived off the 2% royalty. The only conclusion we can draw is that if he had been a felix member we would all have been driving these cars:
Ah well.
Have you also considered that Fleming did not fully consider the ability for characters in his books to make rational business decisions. Did Goldfinger or his Chinese backers exploit fully the opportunities offered by squeezing the futures and options market?
Did Blofeld fully consider either his expense ratio and cashflow exposure when purchasing an island off the Japanese mainland, draining and hollowing it out, kiting it out with technology way ahead of that available to the two superpowers - developing a reuseable rocket for example - let alone one that can capture other spacecraft and return them safely from space. On top of this enormous outlay, no doubt over several years, which must have taken some impressive programme management there was no doubt a hefty premium to be paid for doing all of this in absolute secrecy. why oh why was their entire business plan based upon a single ransom being paid?
The risk/reward ratio does not seem to have been considered at all - a nuclear holocaust surely would not have benefitted Spectre as their stated business aims are based upon having the status quo maintained - they have seemingly no aspirations to own or govern a country or region and did not have the infrastructure to do so makes this seem a dangerously reckless adventure.
Would it not have made better sense to have either licensed the technology to the US and USSR? or developed space tourism before Branson? or just invested the huge amounts of venture capital in a better defined and well thought through business adventure?
Then again do you think that you too have too much time on your hands when you analyse these films to find flaws in their marketing / business plans?
Posted by: Gavin | January 26, 2006 at 06:49 AM