Estratégia em todo lado - não é winner-take-all (Parte VIII)

Há anos que escrevo sobre o futuro das plataformas - Estratégia em todo lado - não é winner-take-all:

• Parte I
• Parte II
• Parte III
• Parte IV
• Parte V
• Parte VI
• Parte VII

Por isso, sorri ao ler "Digital Davids, global Goliaths, and the Web3 sling".

O artigo sugere que, embora a dominância de plataformas do tipo "winner-take-all" como o Google e a Amazon tenha levado a um controlo significativo do mercado e a uma disparidade económica, há uma tendência de mudança para a descentralização com o advento das tecnologias Web3. A Web3, com os seus mecanismos de "decentralized trust mechanisms like blockchain and smart contracts", oferecerá um novo quadro que poderá potencialmente reduzir o poder monopolista dessas plataformas.

Segundo o artigo a Web3 poderá permitir:

• Reduzir a dependência de plataformas centrais através de sistemas descentralizados, que poderão empoderar entidades menores e novos participantes.
• Deslocar o poder económico ao alterar as formas como os dados são possuídos e geridos, redistribuindo potencialmente o valor capturado por grandes plataformas.
• Encorajar sistemas de apoio regulatórios e de pares que favoreçam a concorrência justa e abordem desequilíbrios de poder inerentes à economia digital actual.

Algures escrevi aqui no blogue que não interessa estar na plataforma com a maior audiência, interessa estar na plataforma com a audiência-alvo.

Um número infinito de nichos

Ao longo dos anos tenho escrito aqui sobre as plataformas e o "não é winner-take-all". Por exemplo:

•  “It’s a difficult proposition to be all things to all people, as opposed to doing one thing really well” (Agosto de 2021)
• Estratégia em todo lado - não é winner-take-all (parte IV) (Junho de 2021)
• "Scale vs trust" (Janeiro de 20219)
• Estratégia em todo lado - não é winner-take-all (parte V) (Abril de 2017)
• Estratégia em todo lado - não é winner-take-all (parte IV) (Janeiro de 2017)

Sorri ontem ao ler no Twitter:

“The opposite of broadcast: the distribution economics of the internet favor infinite niches, not one-size-fits-all.”
~ David Shields

— Jim O'Shaughnessy (@jposhaughnessy) February 18, 2023

Um número infinto de nichos ... afinal o que é Mongo? Pois, E porque não somos plankton (parte VII)

“It’s a difficult proposition to be all things to all people, as opposed to doing one thing really well”

Há textos que lemos e nos fazem sorrir. Ontem li "The Next Generation of Resale Sites" onde sublinhei:

"part of a new generation of resale start-ups that sees a big opportunity in filling in the gaps not already dominated by the category’s giants,

...

many niche resale sites pitch themselves as an antidote to e-commerce sites that stock tens of thousands of items. They’re counting on shoppers getting fed up with sifting through an endless online garage sale.

“There is just so much stuff on [large resale sites], sometimes it gets overwhelming,”

...

“If a site is known for selling one certain category, and they do it well, they bring a level of trust,” 

...

“That’s how you get virality,” Chan said. “They will remember that it’s tailor-made for a particular hobby they identify with.”

...

“It’s a difficult proposition to be all things to all people, as opposed to doing one thing really well,” Rose said. “There’s value in community and building deep resonance.”"

Em sintonia com algo que fui lendo ao longo dos anos e que adoptei muito cedo, pode e deve haver estratégia em todo lado, não é winner-take-all! Assim ao longos dos anos citei aqui:

""It soon became apparent that much of the received wisdom about network effects was wrong. The first-mover advantage and winner-take-all theories, for example, were shaky at best.

...

Economists missed the fact that matchmakers, just like any other businesses, can differentiate themselves."[Fonte em 2016]

A todos os que acreditam que as plataformas são uma coisa de "Winner take all"[Fonte de 2019] 

Seth Godin pôs-me na rota certa [Fonte em 2014] 

 E por que é que as plataformas bem sucedidas cavam a sua própria sepultura? [Fonte de 2015] Too big to care é um primeiro passo para a suckiness, para perder perante tribos apaixonadas e irmãos de sangue.

 

Estratégia em todo lado - não é winner-take-all (parte IV)

Parte III. 

"Network effects benefit larger companies and their customers. Whoever gets to scale first will have a substantial advantage. Building a network-effects business is a mad rush. But what about the companies that are left behind? What about small firms? 

...

Are there effective strategies for companies that have a limited number of customers? Yes! There are many examples of smaller companies that compete successfully with (and sometimes even displace) larger organizations that benefit from network effects. Some of the smaller firms succeed by creating customer delight that does not reflect scale. Others find success by giving preference to one of the groups on the platform. Serving a small set of customers can also lead to stellar performance.

...

As powerful as network effects can be, it is important to remember that WTP and customer delight are the currency that ultimately counts.

...

Platforms serve multiple groups of customers, and while many create value for all groups, some choices betray the organization’s primary orientation. A travel site that sorts hotels by profit margin primarily serves the lodging industry. A site that sorts by customer reviews has the opposite orientation.

...

If yours is a small company staring at a large platform, it is always worth asking whether you might be able to create meaningful differentiation by focusing on the WTP of the group that is less favored by your competitor. Etsy found success battling the superpower that is Amazon by doing exactly that—maintaining a sharp focus on the success of its sellers.

...

Serving a Small Set of Customers

In all likelihood, this is the most counterintuitive move that platforms make when they compete against larger rivals that benefit from network effects. How can you succeed against big by being small?

...

The key insight here is that every large platform serves many different types of customers. The attraction between the types varies, however, and building a smaller platform for individuals who greatly value one another is a promising strategy.

Failing to pay attention to differences in the mutual attraction of platform participants can have grave consequences. 

...

Underdogs lift WTP in ways that do not depend on scale. Network effects are one way to raise WTP, but there are many others. As long as these alternatives require no substantial investments, the smaller organization is not at a disadvantage in exploiting them.

Underdogs cater to neglected parties. Most platforms favor specific groups—customers or vendors. Serving the unloved group allows for meaningful differentiation.

Underdogs focus on a small group of customers who place a high value on connections with one another."

Isto ainda não é mainstream. A maioria ainda acredita no winner-take-all.

Trechos retirados de "Better, Simpler Strategy: A Value-Based Guide to Exceptional Performance" 

"It's time to think small" (parte II)

Mão amiga remeteu-me este artigo "Amazon Taking on Farfetch With New Luxury Brand Platform":

"Amazon (NASDAQ:AMZN) is developing a new platform for luxury brands that could bring it into direct competition with the existing luxury fashion marketplace Farfetch (NYSE:FTCH).

According to industry site WWD, a dozen luxury brands are reportedly ready to debut on the platform in September where they will not only have full control over their online stores, but will also be able to tap into Amazon's customer service operations and utilize its rapid delivery network."

Quem segue este blogue sabe que não gosto da abordagem da Farfetch como máquina de queimar dinheiro para ganhar quota de mercado.

O que fariam na posição da Farfetch? Como reagiriam a um movimento deste tipo? Como se diferenciariam? Remember, até mesmo no mundo das plataformas "não é winner-take-all"

Cooperativas, eficientismo e Mongo

Há anos que aqui no blogue escrevo sobre as cooperativas associadas a Mongo e sobre a loucura do eficientismo.

A ideia das cooperativas surgiu-me na sequência da democratização da produção e da fuga à proletarização "uberiana". Alguns postais ao longo dos anos sobre o tema foram:

• Acerca do pós-Uber ou não, uma aposta (Fevereiro de 2016)
• Isto é só o começo... (Abril de 2016)

Mongo é um tema recorrente aqui no blogue.

Ontem em "From the Gig Economy to the Guild Economy" encontrei os mesmos três temas relacionados:

"there’s a problem – actually, many problems. Efficiency is a diminishing returns proposition. The more efficient we become, the longer and harder we need to work to get the next increment of efficiency. Diminishing returns is a problem on its own, but it’s compounded by the fact that we live in a Big Shift world of mounting performance pressure – competition is intensifying, change is accelerating, and extreme disruptive events occur with increasing frequency.
...
We’re already starting to see some of that start to happen in the gig economy. Individual workers are discovering that there are others who share their passion and coming together so that they can work on projects as a group, rather than individuals.
...
On the other side, institutions are going to begin to see that the real value of contract workers is the diversity of experience and expertise that they bring to the work. These contract workers can help the institution’s employees to learn faster by exposing them to different perspectives and approaches to addressing work. These institutions will begin to expand their focus beyond just cost savings and see gig workers as an opportunity to learn faster.
...
We’re going to begin to see impact groups forming and coming together into broader networks that will help them to learn even faster.
That’s where guilds come in.
...
As independent workers become more aware of the imperative for accelerating learning, they will tend to affiliate into guilds that will help to connect them with others who might become part of their impact group and, more broadly, with other impact groups that share their passion for increasing impact in a particular set of activities. These guilds can help to knit together larger and larger networks of impact groups, generating something that I call “creation spaces,” to help scale and accelerate learning."

Acerca de Mongo, no mesmo artigo, algo que parece retirado aqui do blogue acerca da profusão de tribos e do bailado entre oferta e procura:

"Beyond the gig economy, there’s another area that will see the re-emergence of guilds. That’s in product and service businesses that will increasingly fragment as customers demand more and more tailored products and services to serve their specific needs. The participants in these small, but very profitable, product and service businesses will see value in connecting with others in their particular domains so that they can all learn faster and create even more value with less resource. For example, think of a guild for craft chocolate companies that are serving very specific customer niches.
...
To address the opportunity to help participants to learn faster, these guilds need to find a way to move beyond fear of competition and foster the excitement that can come from addressing the exponentially expanding opportunities created by the Big Shift. Rather than embracing a scarcity mindset, these guilds need to cultivate an abundance mindset. They need to recognize that, the more people that come together, driven by a commitment to learn faster, the more opportunity there will be for value creation. It’s a very different heartset and mindset from the ones generated by the fear that is engulfing more and more of the world’s population.
The bottom line
The imperative to learn faster is going to motivate individuals to come together in very different ways. In at least one dimension, our future may represent a return to the past, when we see the re-emergence of guilds. Rather than isolated individuals driven by fear as they confront mounting performance pressures, we are likely to see people coming together, excited about the opportunity to learn faster and embrace exponentially expanding opportunity."

Uma nova lógica competitiva

Em "The New Logic of Competition" encontrei uma figura muito interessante, muito rica:

"Today, artificial intelligence, sensors, and digital platforms have already increased the opportunity for learning more effectively—but competing on the rate of learning will become a necessity by the 2020s. The dynamic, uncertain business environment will require companies to focus more on discovery and adaptation rather than only on forecasting and planning. [Moi ici: Apostar mais em exploration do que em exploitation, apostar mais em experimentação e novidade do que em seguir o guião]
...
Classical models of competition assume that discrete companies make similar products and compete within clearly delineated industries. But technology has dramatically reduced communication and transaction costs, weakening the Coasean logic for combining many activities inside a few vertically integrated firms. At the same time, uncertainty and disruption require individual firms to be more adaptable, and they make business environments increasingly shapeable. Companies now have opportunities to influence the development of the market in their favor, but they can do this only by coordinating with other stakeholders.
.
As a result of these forces, new industrial architectures are emerging based on the coordination of ecosystems—complex, semifluid networks of companies that challenge several traditional business assumptions. [Moi ici: Algo que começámos a perceber quando descobrimos o papel dos influenciadores, dos prescritores, dos reguladores, e dos clientes dos clientes]
...
New opportunities are likely to come increasingly from digitizing the physical world, enabled by the rapid development and penetration of AI and the Internet of Things. This will increasingly bring tech companies into areas—such as B2B and businesses involving long-lived and specialized assets—that are still dominated by older incumbent firms.
...
Companies can no longer expect to succeed by leaning predominantly on their existing business models. Long-run economic growth rates have declined in many economies, and demographics point to a continuation of that pattern. Competitive success has become less permanent over time. And markets are increasingly shapeable, increasing the potential reward for innovation. As a result, the ability to generate new ideas is more important than ever. [Moi ici: Subir na escala de valor depende cada vez mais não do que se produz, mas das experiências que permitimos que o cliente sinta na sua vida ao integrar a nossa oferta na sua actividade]
...
Looking ahead to the 2020s, uncertainty is high on many fronts. Technological change is disrupting businesses and bringing new social, political, and ecological questions to the forefront.
...
Furthermore, deep-seated structural forces indicate this period of elevated uncertainty is likely to persist: technological progress will not abate; the rise of China as an economic power will continue to challenge international institutions; demographic trends point toward an era of lower global growth, which will further strain societies; and social polarization will continue to challenge governments’ ability to effectively respond to national or global risks.
...
Under such conditions, it will become more difficult to rely on forecasts and plans. Business leaders will need to consider the larger picture, including economic, social, political, and ecological dimensions, making sure their companies can endure in the face of unanticipated shocks. In other words, businesses will effectively need to compete on resilience." [Moi ici: Mas a constituição e os partidos socialistas, da direita e da esquerda, consideram a flexibilidade e a resiliência crimes graves! ]

Como é que a sua organização se está a preparar para este mundo muito mais incerteza? O que está a fazer para ser mais criativa? O que está a fazer para conciliar digital e físico? O que está a fazer para construir ou integrar um ecossistema? O que está a fazer para aprender muito mais depressa?

"It's time to think small"

Ontem enquanto terminava um esboço sobre este postal um canal de televisão emitia pela enésima vez o filme "As Good As It Gets". Quando desliguei o televisor as três personagens principais (Melvin, Carol e Simon) seguiam de carro a caminho de Baltimore.

Baltimore ... e recordo: "Faz-me lembrar ter descoberto que na cidade de Baltimore, só na cidade de Baltimore, antes de 1920 existiam 19 marcas fabricantes de automóveis" ou "Na bacia do Arade, deste lado do Parchal e Ferragudo e em Portimão, chegou a haver 23 fábricas de conservas." E isto faz-me pensar nas cervejeiras americanas:

A maioria das pessoas que escreve sobre a economia online fala das plataformas como uma corrida para o dominio total, para tirar o maior retorno possível do efeito de escala e da rede de conexões. Daí a corrida das Uber, das Farfetch e dos Facebooks deste mundo.

Eu não acredito nessa leitura. É claro que essa corrida faz sentido agora que a internet está na sua infância e o centrão do meio-termo domina. No entanto, na internet como no resta da economia, o centrão vai dar lugar às tribos. Por isso, também nas plataformas não teremos um único vencedor a ganhar tudo, também nas plataformas poderemos ter muitos vencedores. No final deste postal listo uma série de postais que publiquei ao longo dos anos aqui no blogue sobre esta temática.

Entretanto, esta semana li um artigo interessante acerca disto tudo, "In Defense of The Small Social Network":

"It’s time to agitate for a new version of the internet, one where our only choices aren’t boredom or fear, one where the internet isn’t a joyless place run by billionaires. It’s time to think small.
...
Ello, for example, launched in 2014 and aimed to be a better kind of network — one less cluttered and commercialized than Facebook. Did it save online discourse? No. But it was a step in the right direction. Ello still exists, has a little over 3 million users as of last year, and is mostly used by artists and designers. Despite its miniscule size, it’s actually a success story, providing a community where artists can showcase themselves. Contrast Ello with YouTube, where the loudest voice in the room often wins, and only creators willing to accept sponsorships and do whatever gets the most eyeballs can thrive.
Other small social networks, like Mastodon, are flourishing in their own little ways too. Mastodon takes a totally different approach to social media: Instead of one centralized group moderating and curating content, the platform allows users to have their own private groups and timelines, and decide what kind of content is displayed themselves"

Quem é que precisa de plataformas que cheguem a todo o lado?
As empresas que trabalham para o centrão, para a média. Aquilo a que Seth Godin chamou de industrialistas, os que procuram a estabilidade e temem a concorrência e a sua destruição criativa. Seth sublinha que não foram as pessoas que criaram o mercado de massas, foram os industrialistas que o fizeram para poder despachar o seu vómito para o maior número possível de pessoas e agora, com Mongo, esse mundo está a morrer.

Entre Junho de 2016 e Julho de 2019 a série "Estratégia em todo lado - não é winner-take-all" já teve sete episódios. No entanto, antes disso já escrevia sobre Mongo e as plataformas:

• Acerca das plataformas de negócio;
• Confundir o Estanhistão com Comoditização... suspeito

"É claro que muitos olham para hoje e vêem as Uber e as AirBnB e adivinham um futuro dominado por essas mega-plataformas. Prefiro considerá-las como entidades transitórias, úteis para dinamitar as grilhetas criadas pelos governos para proteger os incumbentes do Normalistão. Depois? Depois, virão as plataformas de 2ª geração ou cooperativas, porque existe estratégia em todo o lado, às vezes é só uma questão de tempo."

• Isto é só o começo... (Abril de 2016) 
• Plataformas, Mongo, emprego e confiança nas marcas (Fevereiro de 2016)
• Plataformas de 2º geração, o começo (Novembro de 2015)
• O pós-Uber(ismo) (Outubro de 2015)
• Reflexão-previsão acerca do futuro das plataformas (Junho de 2015)

Sintomas de um mundo em mudança

Sintomas de um mundo em mudança:

• A Deluge of Batteries Is About to Rewire the Power Grid (Interessante cada vez mais ver referências a algo sobre o qual comecei a escrever há vários anos "And the end of utility companies as we know them")
• Refashioning clothing’s environmental impact
• Baby Amazons take on their American role model
• China scrambles to stem manufacturing exodus as 50 companies leave

"Scale vs trust"

A todos os que acreditam que as plataformas são uma coisa de "Winner take all", recomendo a leitura de "Managing reputation in the age of infinity", sobretudo de:

"Of course, it’s not just Amazon. it’s the ads you see on Facebook (unvetted, unlike the ads you see on network TV). It’s the worst 5% of the hotels in any given franchise, one that’s in a hurry to get big fast. It’s the latest unregulated quack remedy that’s sure to cure your chronic disease…
.
And it’s going to show up everywhere that an individual or an organization thinks that scale is more important than trust.
.
“Buyer beware” has never been a good way to build attention, trust or a brand with value. It’s not a good way to create a community or forward motion either."

Daí a minha crença em "Estratégia em todo lado - não é winner-take-all"

• (parte VI)
• (parte V)
• (parte IV)
• (parte III)
• (parte II)
• (parte I)

"competitive advantage is no longer the sum of all efficiencies"

"In Michael Porter’s landmark book, Competitive Advantage, the Harvard professor argued that the key to long-term success was to dominate the value chain by maximizing bargaining power among suppliers, customers, new market entrants and substitute goods. The goal was to create a sustainable competitive advantage your rivals couldn’t hope to match.
...
Clearly, much has changed since Porter wrote his book nearly 40 years ago. Today, we live in a networked world and competitive advantage is no longer the sum of all efficiencies, but the sum of all connections. Strategy, therefore, must be focused on widening and deepening links to resources outside the firm.
.
So you can see why trust has taken on greater importance."

Recordar daqui:

"[Moi ici: Interessante! Tenho uma opinião completamente diferente!!! O futuro não é "posse e controlo" o futuro será colaboração e co-criação. O futuro não é maximizar o lucro por um elemento numa relação diádica mas fazer com que todos os intervenientes no ecossistema ganhem a sua parte. Nenhum gigante terá vantagem contra uma multidão de Davids... a menos que, como de costume, tenha o poder dos Estados do seu lado]"

Trechos retirados de "How Trust Can Be A Competitive Advantage"

Não é fácil!

Via Rui cheguei a este artigo "Brand websites are losing importance". Para quem acredita na hipótese Mongo isto não parece bater certo com a narrativa.
"The traditional brand website is losing importance among online shoppers in Europe. Only 11 percent of European e-shoppers say they go to a brand’s website first when they are searching for a product. A significant share of online shoppers, 45 percent, turn to Amazon first."
Fez-me lembrar este tweet de há dias:

dá-me um gozo saltar por cima de booking, triage et al e ligar directamente para os hotéis a fazer uma reserva

— Carlos P da Cruz (@ccz1) October 11, 2018

A esmagadora maioria das interacções foram no sentido criticar o que tinha feito. porque teria conseguido melhor preço via plataforma.

Se o produto não é exclusivo de uma loja, o mais provável é que um cliente opte por comprá-lo num local onde há mais informação, onde há um sentido de maior confiança no acto de pagamento e de maior facilidade de devolução, ... uma reputação, e a ideia de que tem o preço mais baixo.

Sem exclusividade... a loja tem de ser uma experiência positiva.

Ainda há a acrescentar o medo das lojas em alienarem os seus clientes B2B. Tentam através da loja online agradar ao cliente B2C e ao mesmo tempo não perder o cliente B2B. Não é fácil! 

Não é sobre sexo!

Algo me diz que o futuro das redes sociais passará por algo deste tipo, "What is Switter? What you need to know about the growing sex-workers network".

As marcas e os políticos, que querem despejar as suas mensagens genéricas ao maior número possível de pessoas, adoram facebooks et al. No entanto, as tribos de Mongo preferem redes mais pequenas e direccionadas para a sua realidade específica.

Acerca da lealdade às marcas

A propósito de "The Death Of Brand Loyalty: Cultural Shifts Mean It's Gone Forever":

"In the old days, consumers would find a brand that did what it promised: ... In the busy, sometimes overwhelming lives of primary grocery shoppers, a brand earned its place in the pantry or laundry room or refrigerator, and consumer packaged goods manufacturers were rewarded with consistent purchase.
...
Consumers are not inclined to be loyal to brands as they once were because the underlying value of loyalty itself is no longer particularly relevant. In the old world, loyalty was good and something we aspired to give and receive across all aspects of life . . . with friends, family, employers, dentists, doctors, bankers, and maybe even the federal government. But generational experiences have made sticking with “tried and true” a sucker bet. Loyalty means remaining the same. Not exploring alternatives.
...
The preference for “new and different” is well known to the Procter & Gambles, General Mills, and Kimberly-Clarks of the world that are making acquisitions, unloading what can’t be resuscitated, and funding their own VCs. They recognize that establishing and maintaining ongoing connections between consumers and their brands is becoming less and less realistic."

Já não é a primeira vez que aqui torço o nariz a esta teoria de que os clientes são cada vez menos leais a uma marca. Recordo Simondson e o que escrevi em "Plataformas, Mongo, emprego e confiança nas marcas" ou em "Leu aqui há vários anos...".

O exemplo da Chobani ou da Halo Top por um lado, e o das Procters and Gambles e Krafts deste mundo suportam a minha teoria de que não é a lealdade às marcas que está em causa, mas a lealdade às marcas do mercado de massas, as marcas do século XX, as marcas do Normalistão, as marcas amorfas que têm medo de desagradar, que têm medo de não serem apetecíveis para os que estão dentro da caixa e que acabam na suckiness dos gigantes.

"To defeat a network, we had become a network"

"There is no such thing as an organizational panacea—the details will always be different for different people, places, and objectives—but we believe that our model provides a good blueprint.
Eventually, we all have to take a leap of faith and dive into the swirl. Our destination is a future whose form we may not find comforting, but which has just as much beauty and potential as the straight lines and right angles of the past century of reductionism: this future will take the form of organic networks, resilience engineering, controlled flooding—a world without stop signs.
...
To defeat a network, we had become a network. We had become a team of teams."

E relacionar este "To defeat a network, we had become a network." com a tendência para trabalhar com ecossistemas e plataformas para moldar um mercado? É claro que a guerra não é uma boa metáfora para o mundo económico, mas dá que pensar.


Trechos retirados de "Team of Teams: The Power of Small Groups in a Fragmented World" de Stanley McChrystal e Chris Fussell.

" there is too much complexity and too much uncertainty"

"In the 21st century, there is too much complexity and too much uncertainty for a focus on “maximizing profits this quarter” to work very well. The landscape is littered with companies that tried this, and they simply did not understand — either because they could not understand or refused to understand — the complex consequences of their actions.
...
The new story of business is about creating as much value for all these stakeholders as possible, and this of course includes creating profits for shareholders. In the global economy, customers, suppliers, employees, communities, and financiers — shareholders plus bondholders plus banks and other sources of capital — are all intertwined. The winning business models of the 21st century figure out how to get these interests going in the same direction, with as few trade-offs as possible.
...
The stakeholder approach sets forth a new conceptualization of business, in which business is understood as a set of relationships and management’s job is to help shape these relationships. [Moi ici: Aqui] Business is about how customers, suppliers, employees, financiers, communities, and managers interact to create value, and there is no single formula for balancing or prioritizing stakeholders. Creating that balance is part of what management is all about, and it will be different for different companies at different times."

Recordar "Ecossistemas em economia" e vantagem de pensar na maximização do valor criado a nível de um ecossistema.

Trechos retirados de "The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Create Value for Stakeholders"

"the more active participation of multiple network actors"

"In this networked context, service organizations need to move from dyadic management of their relationship with customers, to defining their role and contribution to value cocreation in a many-to-many context. The boundaries between service providers and customers become more blurred and dynamic. Multiple forms of service provision become possible, where the customer may play a more autonomous and active role in service provision, combining multiple offerings from multiple service providers and social networks. In this new environment, service providers need to go beyond managing their relationship with customers, to understanding and managing their role in the value networks and service ecosystems.
...
future research should not only explore how multiple contributions should be integrated, but research on other service design and innovation topics should increasingly use multiple lenses instead of only adopting a single lens.
.
Another intersecting trend is the change in the breadth and nature of actor involvement in service design and innovation. Service design and innovation are moving from the traditional customer-centered view to a broader human-centered view. This changes the focus from the customer and the customer- provider dyad to a wider set of actors and many-to-many interactions in complex value networks. This will become increasingly important and complex, as new technology generates more nodes in the network. The nature of actor involvement is also changing. Instead of passive customer involvement to extract information that can be later used by the design team, the change has been toward the more active participation of multiple network actors who become active participants in design decisions and cocreators of the solution."

Ler isto e relacionar logo com Ramirez & Manervik  e com esta outra leitura de ontem, "The Next 10 Years Will Be About “Market-Networks"":

"An event planner builds a profile on HoneyBook.com. That profile serves as her professional home on the Web. She uses the HoneyBook SaaS workflow to send self-branded proposals to clients and sign contracts digitally.
.
She then connects the other professionals she works with like florists and photographers to that project. They also get profiles on HoneyBook and everyone can team up to service a client, send each other proposals, sign contracts and get paid by everyone else.

This many-to-many transaction pattern is key. HoneyBook is an N-sided marketplace — transactions happen a 360-degree pattern like a network, but they come here with transacting in mind. That makes HoneyBook both a marketplace and network."

Trechos iniciais retirados de "Upframing Service Design and Innovation for Research Impact" de Lia Patrício, Anders Gustafsson e Raymond Fisk, publicado por Journal of Service Research 2018, Vol. 21(1) 3-16

Conteúdos como relações

Antes de ler "Winning with Content – How to Stay Competitive with Amazon This Holiday Season" ler um relato em primeira mão em "My visit to an Amazon bookstore" e recordar que se calhar a tal ideia de winner-take-all é capaz de não ser totalmente verdade, é preciso é trabalhar.

Recordar este pensamento:

"Brands think of content as another product to create, but content isn’t a thing. Content is a relationship."

A magia da interacção

 Ao longo dos anos tenho aqui sublinhado o papel da interacção nos ecossistemas da procura, para fugir à comoditização, para subir na escala de valor.

"The Joint Sphere: Value Co-creation Opportunities.
In the joint sphere, the customer’s value creation is different. In this part of the value process, the two actors meet and interact with each other.
...
What may happen in such direct interactions, if the actors allow it, is that the provider’s and the customer’s processes—the firm’s service-providing process and the customer’s consumption and value-creating process—merge into one interactive, collaborative and dialogical process. The two processes become one, and a platform of co-creation emerges. Such direct interactions can be both face-to-face interactions and interactions with smart technologies. If both actors are willing to do it and know how to do it, the service provider may engage with the customer’s value-creating process and co-create value with him or her at this stage of the value process. If they do not want to or do not know how to do it, no value co-creation takes place, in spite of the existence of a platform of co-creation. In that case, the provider’s role is restricted to continue facilitating the customer’s value creation.
.
Thus, in the joint sphere, the role of the firm may be that of a value co-creator, where the firm’s goal is to, when needed and appropriate, actively influence the customer’s value-creating process and, thus, his or her value fulfilment. On the other hand, the customer’s role is to be the value creator and perhaps also a value co-creator with the provider. The customer’s goal is the same as in the customer sphere: to use and integrate resources with the aim to become better off. In the joint sphere, the actors may switch roles, and the provider becomes the customer and the customer becomes the service provider of, for example, actionable information and feedback. Viewed from below, from a managerial micro-perspective, co-creation only takes place in direct interactions, provided that a platform of co-creation is formed. In all other situations, the firm can only facilitate the customer’s value creation.
...
From a managerial point of view, co-creation can have both positive and negative consequences.[Moi ici: Quando o tema não é abordado de forma preparada, planeada, é provável que por vezes quem interage não tenha consciência das prioridades e das consequências dos seus actos e comportamentos]
...
From the micro-vantage point, one also observes that the firm can do much more than only offer value propositions. If the actors’ processes indeed merge in the joint sphere into an interactive, collaborative and dialogical process and a platform of co-creation comes into existence, the firm has the opportunity to influence the customer’s value process and how this process develops, and in the end, the customer’s value fulfilment. Because this also may have an impact on the customer’s preferences and future purchasing decisions, it also has fundamental implications for marketing. In the service marketing literature, this part of the marketing process is called interactive marketing, and the service employees involved in it are termed part-time marketers."

Trechos retirados de "On Value and Value Creation in Service: A Management Perspective" de Christian Grönroos publicado por Jornal of Creating Value.

Mongo - outra previsão

"I predict that over the next 25 years we should expect to see radical de-centralization in virtually every large human endeavor, from global businesses to educational institutions, nonprofits, and even governments themselves.
.
Within a single generation (at most, two), we will see nearly every large, top-down organization now in existence rendered nearly obsolete, supplanted or made irrelevant by decentralized, self-organizing groups of individuals. From giant manufacturing companies and world-scale software vendors to local, state, and national governments and bureaus, the tasks these organizations accomplish today are all likely to be accomplished instead by groups of individual people connected and empowered by technology. [Moi ici: Até aqui tudo em sintonia com a previsão que fazemos há anos acerca de Mongo. Até aqui em linha com as provocações que costumo fazer aos textos das consultoras grandes que trabalham para as multinacionais e que escondem esta possibilidade. Já o trecho que se segue não tem o meu acordo. Prevejo a ascensão das plataformas cooperativas numa segunda geração. Numa primeira fase as plataformas gigantes são necessárias para partir as leis do século XX criadas para proteger as corporações incumbents. Depois, a estratégia fará o seu aparecimento] Think about Uber, Taskrabbit, or Airbnb, and how these would be applied to large companies and governments.
...
The more efficiently technology connects us, the more radical this decentralization process will become. In 25 years it’s quite likely that a large number of today’s big industries, business models, and even government organizations will no longer exist, their functions sustained by looser, decentralized groups."

Trechos retirados de "My 25-Year Prediction: Radical Decentralization"