When Sony
launched its VAIO (originally, an acronym of Video Audio Integrated Operation)
series of personal computers, first as desktops in 1996 and later as laptop and
notebook computers in 1997, not many took Sony seriously. Users were under the
impression that computers were industrial and business products, for which
service would be the most important. The market mainstay at that point of time was
seen in terms of office and industrial use. As Sony sold its laptops and
notebooks through its normal consumer retail outlets which mainly sold
televisions and other audio-visual products to individual consumers and
families, Sony was not considered to be channel-friendly to the computer
buyers. To Sony’s credit, it proved its detractors wrong. VAIO became the
preferred laptop brand competing with Apple, HP and IBM/Lenovo, for its top of
the mind consumer recall. It even became a leader in large format CPU
integrated desktop computers. Sony emerged next only to Apple in terms of
design elegance and product sophistication.
If one would
recall, laptops at that point of time were staid and boxy with black as the
only color (even today, several models continue to be that way). Sony pioneered
laptop and notebook design to levels that made the products works of art. Use
of exotic materials and colors and incorporation of slim form factor enabled
Sony to develop and offer lightweight and high performance computers that
captured the imagination of young and old as well as individual users and
business firms alike. The latest in Sony design innovation is VAIO Flip which
represented a unique design that straddled a laptop and tablet. In terms of
hardware too, Sony VAIO packed a punch with bundles of proprietary software to
add considerable value to the products. Against the scenario of elegant design,
sophisticated manufacture and robust branding, the recent decision by Sony to
sell off its VAIO computer business to Japan Industrial Partners (JIP), booking
a business loss in the bargain, has been a surprise.
Theme in
strategy
The divestment
of the VAIO business must have been emotional for Sony but seems a practical decision
from one perspective, and visionary from another perspective. The practicality
arises from the fact that the Sony VAIO may have fired the imagination of users
but has not exactly raked in the requisite revenues and profits. Part of it
could be related to the high manufacturing and supply chain costs related to
multiple SKUs and excessive accessories. The strategy of multiple product
platforms, frequent model changes, optional availability of several accessories,
and celebrity led advertisement campaigns required that Sony operated VAIO as a
mass market product range to financially breakeven. Yet, the products were often
a trifle underspecified spec-wise and quite over-specified price-wise. The
top-of-the-line design elegance inspires consumers to look for the best in
hardware capabilities, but Sony traditionally stopped short of giving the best
in its products; for example, 1 TB hard disk capacity is offered with a
6 GB RAM, rather than an 8 GB RAM. Even in respect of flash memory models,
initial offerings have been in terms of 128 GB rather than 256 GB.
Possibly, Sony’s
reluctance to pack the ultimate punch in the internals in line with the
futuristic external elegance has limited the market for its elegant products;
many consumers seek RAM upgrades at their cost, for example. The strategic
template set for VAIO laptops (the best in design, the next best in hardware, the
maximal variety in SKUs, the best in promotion, and the highest in pricing) was
thus possibly too embedded to allow a major shift for higher volumes, lower
volumes and a revival in profitability. The
proposed divestment of its PC business by Sony thus makes sense in the face of
Sony’s unwillingness to make any major shift in VAIO strategic theme.
Interestingly, this is not the first time that Sony exited from its computers
business. Sony initially entered the PC business in the 1980s with computers
made exclusively for the Japanese domestic market but exited the business in
the early 1990s. The proposed VAIO divestment, after a successful reentry in
1996 and growth over nearly two decades, is reflective of an approach to delete
the strategy itself rather than reengineer the strategy. From a strategy
perspective, therefore, firms do face the clinical option of strategic
abandonment vis-à-vis thematic reengineering. That said, Sony’s decision is
possibly not as simple and self-effacing as it appears.
Arena redefinition
Sony’s
decision to quit the VAIO business needs to be viewed in the context of how the
communication, computing, entertainment and social media arenas are getting
redefined and integrated into one huge seamless arena of networking through the
cloud. Smart phones and tablets have emerged as the devices which cater to this
new arena. Sony’s decision to quit the VAIO computer business needs to be seen
in the context of the company’s earlier decision to consolidate in the mobile
phones business by buying out the stake of Ericsson in the Sony-Ericsson joint
venture. Over the last few years since this has happened, Sony has demonstrated
a new penchant to bring its industrial design and manufacturing elegance to the
smart phones business. One may hypothesize that Sony would now concentrate all
its resources to develop a smart phone and tablet lineup that caters to the
four needs of communication, computing, entertainment and social media. From a
perspective of developing a strategy for future, Sony’s smart phone and
computer decisions together indicate how a changing technology landscape could
dictate the product strategy, and an overall business strategy.
While redefining
the strategic arena is important, developing a new generation of devices that
meet the requirements of the new arena is equally essential. Sony’s design
studios must surely be working on the new product themes. The challenge is to
imagine the future shape of arena. In this case, for example, the question
would be how seamlessly the nations of the future would be networked. Like
radio and television waves, would carriers and the governments be offering free
seamless wireless connectivity through satellites across the nations? Answers to
such questions would determine how the phones and tablets of the future would
evolve. It is important that product development in environments of such
technological fluidity must emerge from the environments of the future rather
than the capabilities of the firm. One view, for example, is that the large
boutique of proprietary software that Sony bundles in its VAIO and other
devices (nicknamed ‘bloatware’) has been a system drag rather than a user
friend. As products become mass-market products, the balance between three types
of product architectures, open, value added semi-open and proprietary, has to
be carefully evolved.
Strategy, product
sine cycles
Most firms
that exist for the long term go through strategy cycles. These are sinusoidal
curves of entry, growth, decline and exit into a business based on specific
products. While this may seem similar to a product lifecycle, what is not seen
is the hidden sine wave of product redevelopment that occurs, unseen to the
external world. This involves deep de-learning, futuristic re-development,
revalidation through piloting and finally reentry into the market. If Sony’s strategy journey, from 1980 to 2014,
is reviewed, clearly strategy can be seen to be moving in cycles (for example, into
computers, out of it, again into computers and again out of it) with silent
product redevelopment occurring unseen. Microsoft has also been into some kind
of strategy cycles in a similar manner (into tablets, out of it, into it, and
again further into it, through acquisition). Firms with strong brand equity and
deep resources would use every exit challenge as an opportunity to reinvent its
products and its own business. ITC, which is a market leader in cigarettes may
face product exit if tobacco consumption is banned but the sinusoidal theory of
strategy would require that ITC should develop tobacco and nicotine free
cigarettes for a reentry.
Product
strengths and environmental fit of a firm positively correlate with each other.
Product stagnation and environmental transformation inversely correlate with
each other. This constitutes the essence of the theory of sinusoidal theory of
business and product strategy. Strategists
must define objectively, and on a continuing basis, the fit between current
products and future environment. When products are considered inappropriate for
the future evolution and the firm does not have the resources to reinvent the
products or any such reinvention is not considered sustainable or viable,
strategic exit is advisable. If the reverse is true, that is products are appropriate
and can be rendered even more effective for the new environment, the product
strategy must be leveraged to amplify the business strategy. The stronger the
product competencies and greater the product-environment, the greater will be
the amplitude of the sine wave. If the entry-peak-exit sine wave has high
amplitude and long time horizon, the hidden product redevelopment reverse
sine-wave need not necessarily have the same amplitude and time span; it is all
a question of how technological savvy and proactive a firm is.
Ideally, the
positive sine wave of product-market entry, growth and decline and product (not
necessarily market) exit must be mirrored by the inverse sine wave of product
redevelopment, piloting and reentry into the market. Even as the positive sine
wave takes shape and rules the market, there should be several inverse sine
waves of product redevelopment. Sony VAIO case study teaches us the curious but
very interesting theory of sinusoidal product and business strategy. A
technologically virtuous and environmentally sensitive firm should take cue to
let technology and business act in concert to generate high and wide positive
sine waves and simultaneously generate short and speedy inverse sine waves of
product strategy. The author believes
that the theory of sinusoidal product and business strategy, as developed in
this blog post, is a novel contribution to the theory of strategy that seems
strapped for innovative contributions.
Posted by Dr
CB Rao on February 9, 2014
1 comment:
I really appreciate it, I will visit whenever I have found the stuff That I have been searching for in all the web for, keep up the great work! Thanks for sharing. . .
international relocation services.
Post a Comment