INNOVATION
Brand Growth Versus Profits
In Innovation
By Andrew Riungu
I
nnovation is probably one of the
most, if not the most, used phrases in
corporate organizations these days.
There is a firm belief from most corporate
executives that you must innovate and
you need to innovate in order to survive
this corporate jungle. This is true… even
humans went through innovation… well,
evolution, but isn’t it the same thing?
Just like we humans evolved to what we
are now referred to as Homo sapiens,
companies and brands also evolve and
have evolved. This reminds me of a saying I
once heard about men and change… “Men
do not change, they evolve.” Similarly, I
believe the same holds true for brands.
Brands do not change (well, more often
than not they don’t), they evolve. Change
would mean you move from one state to
a totally different state losing the essence
of what defined your character. When you
evolve on the other hand, you still keep
something(s) that is unique to you, but
adapt to the changing tide.
Innovating or evolving, reinvigorates life
and is useful in making life a little bit more
interesting and less mundane. Whilst I
agree innovation is a great thing, it often
can be disastrous for businesses. Clayton
Christensen and Teddy Hall captured it
well in their book “Competing Against
Luck” where they clearly articulated how
most brands and companies succeed in
innovation merely by luck, and when
luck runs out, things get disastrous. OK
maybe the word “disastrous” might be a bit
melodramatic but you get the point.
All of this activity and using luck as a
recipe for innovation success has really
When brands are insulated by success, it is
common for them to innovate with the expecta-
tion of immediate success. Heck, some brands
even feel that they are entitled to the success in
both profits and brand growth. Jim Collins, in
his book “How The Mighty Fall”, calls this Hu-
bris born of success, and describes it as the first
stage of five stages, in a brands path to decline.
36 MAL27/18 ISSUE
bewildered me. What Christensen and
Hall articulate in their book is the need
to implement the “Jobs To Be Done”
theory ( JTBD for short) as the guiding
principle for innovation. This theory
makes sense and when you read through
the framework and apply it, you realise
that it also works and is very effective
in building lasting innovative success.
Nevertheless, a company or brand can
adopt JTBD theory, and create a great
product or service, then the innovation
fails… why did it fail?
Well, from my review and based on my
experience dealing with varied brands,
it is due to lack of a singular priority
between profits and brand growth. Yes
you can use JTBD theory to get you a
kickass innovative product or service…
but if you have not decided what will be
your priority between profits and brand
growth, and what you are willing to let
lag behind, there is a high probability
that your innovation will fail… unless of
course luck is on your side.
Failure is not a bad thing in innovation
because you can learn from it, dust
yourself and come back stronger like
we will see in an example I will share
later. But consistent failures to innovate
correctly usually sends messages to your
core consumers that you are not the expert
suited to help them tackle the various jobs
they want to get done, and succeed in
getting them done.