http://gigaom.com/cloud/cisco-what-went-wrong-and-what-needs-to-be-fixed/
As I read Stacey Higginbotham's latest post in GigaOm (published 5 Apr 11), I considered initial observations on the communications topic it addresses. The mea culpa memo is standard corporate (and political) fare. Doing it well – and in a timely fashion - is a given. How it’s done is the real question.
I’ll be looking through the wording and manner of access to the Chambers memo with the following question – to what extent was the manner of the message reflective of the new ‘architectural direction’ proposed for Cisco? This memo is secondly about Cisco's technology. It's primary purpose is knowing its customer.
Cisco is rethinking how it performs its core functions, ones in which it has led and excelled well In times recent and past. Does the message reflect a physical verticality, or does it involve and invite a culture and company to participate in the new innovation?
A verticalized message would be contradictory here. A more intelligently forward thinking message, one that was networking definitive in itself, could be a turning point, and an illustration of leadership.
Secondly, to what extent could Chambers’ words and method be applied in a political cause movement context? Obama showed us in 2008 that a brand and cause model, applied to a political campaign, interwove well with today’s social media platforms and voter decision making/information consumption preferences.
Consider this idea within a cause format:
(S Higginbotham; GigaOm) “So proprietary may be acceptable in an area where Cisco has a huge market share, but in consumer and telepresence — where it is trying to build users and adoption — it forgot that a key tenet of creating a platform is either making it incredibly usable and or incredibly open.”
With the quick side note that I don’t like the word incredible (Thanks to exceptional high school English teachers who likely still think my work needs editing) the point made is a central one.
Addressing a shifting and flexible market – i.e. keeping up with one’s own space – is not entirely a matter of proprietary ownership and its notions of control. It also involves open and usable access formats.
A political movement may have history, big names, and a powerful client base. Every famous person that matters might use it. But is it (incredibly) usable? Is it (incredibly) open? Do new and reengaging customers understand its place and role in contexting their own brand commitment experience and actions? Do customers see themselves as a key part of defining that brand?
In the case of Cisco, this is an enormous – and core - question. A younger generation that assumes connectivity and cloud will not envision the purchase of a physical network in the same way as a now forty-something engager of technology did when she was analyzing the same space more than a decade ago. In the same way, a younger cause participant may not look at how many famous spokespersons or cutely sloganed positions a movement has. Those, to her, are the relics of a respected but almost irrelevant yesteryear.
She may seek out the most usable toolkit, one that allows her to organize in her own customized, local, mobile and tangible way. She may not be attracted to top down direction and instruction, but may look for words and actions that show her that a movement is more horizontal – that it’s enabled socially – as she is.
Does the company look like its new customer? Or one from a time of glory past? What and whom does its brand truly seek to persuade? Chambers is asking that, and I think that’s a very good question. From both a business and a communications perspective.