Five-year business plans aren’t worth the ink cartridge they’re printed with.
— Davy Kestens (@davykestens) August 20, 2014
Au trecut 10 ani de la IPO-ul Google, 19 august 2004, listare la 85 dolari actiunea, astazi actiunea este aproape 600 dolari. Alte date comparative:
- Venituri 2004: $3.19 miliarde vs venituri 2014 $66.73 miliarde
- Vizitatori din SUA pe siteurile Google in 2004: 64 milioane/luna vs vizitatori din SUA pe siteurile Goole in 2014 236 milioane/luna
- Numar angajati in 2004: 2,292 vs numar angajati in 2014: 52,069
- Cash in banca in 2004: $255 milioane vs cash in banca la 30 iunie 2014: $61 miliarde
NSA privacy invasion bad, but nothing compared to Google.
— Rupert Murdoch (@rupertmurdoch) August 17, 2014
So how, then, have changes in technology forced P&G into a different direction?
The first change has been the massive increase in noise. It is so much more difficult today for a brand to break through, especially as compared to the halycon days of one local newspaper and three broadcast channels. Today there are not only TV channels galore, but display advertising, search advertising, Facebook, Twitter, and more. While it is true that uber-specialized brands can now more easily hone in one specific niches, that takes real money and is much more difficult to pull off across 200 brands. P&G has likely realized that many of its brands were simply getting drowned out, rendering the money spent marketing them effectively worthless. Thus P&G has decided it needs to “go big or go home” – either spend a lot of money to make sure a brand stands out, or simply get rid of the brand.