I have some comments that tie in with "Old tech" vs "New Tech". Using
the Volvo example...a perfect example of a brand in an industry that has
a solid product, has had that product for decades (longer?), and has
traditions to maintain. I can drive the same car for 10 to 15 years
(longer if I take better care of it, and don't care so much what it
looks like. My kids would probably have some of thier best memories
around that car (trips, being picked up from sports, just the comfort of
seeing it in the driveway). Combine that with a company that is
fostering a "brand" and you have Rob's definition.
Now take Google (or any "New Tech" for that matter). First off, it has
a VERY short existence (the entire internet has only been around since
the early 90's), that does not allow time to build that type of
"brand". Also, the "New Tech" is innovating at a much faster rate.
Chances are that Google will suffer from "the next new thing", an IP
lawsuit or two, or another general collapse of the "new tech" sector.
It might survive, but may not be considered as cutting edge (remember
when a cluttered webpage was the height of web design?). Google (or most
"New Tech" ) does not have a solid product that has a lifespan measured
in years (with luck 5 years tops). My kids will not have fond memories
of surfing the web with google at their side because things are moving
too fast to form that bond. The only reason Microsoft has the branding
they do is that they have the cash to weather most any adversity. They
also where able to build a brand before the "New Tech" sector really
took off.
Steve Phariss
Libertywebworks.com
Received on Wed Sep 24 2003 - 08:15:08 CDT
