Comments

I agree to an extent, though the point you're making about the lack of innovative direction/commitment of large companies is not just because of the lack of their aptitude for a risk/creativity equation, or because they are large and bureaucratic and have some kind of reluctance towards improving the world. In many cases it's a far more worrying set of penomena:

1. Companies are providing movies people WANT TO SEE. If they don't think people are going to pay $10 to see them, they don't make them. That's just business sense.

2. The regulatory environments force companies into hugely defensive measures - such as merging (perhaps unnecessarily) - in order to just plain stay alive. This is a case of too much government intervention rather than any kind of serious corporate failure.

It's point 2 I think holds up as the strongest argument for the lack of innovation and the wave of big mergers. It's only human instinct to try and stay alive in an environment that is hostile to you: this is as true for companies as it is for human beings.

I don't get why you don't get more pissed with the political systems which create the lethargy you so deplore sometimes Tom?

Posted by Daniel M. Harrison at July 28, 2006 8:20 PM

I tend to disagree with Bart's comments in the NYT article Tom was quoting from to the extent that there is something wrong with sequels just because the studio execs find them boring -- sequels get made and watched because people like the characters and want to see more of them. Harry Potter and Spiderman, for instance.

But Tom's larger point is about the submlimation of WOW! to some consultant's or investment banker's sterile concept of "synergy." Ugh.

Innovation isn't going to be found at LucentAlcatel or whatever they'll call themselves [unless there is still a genius left at what remains of Bell Labs]. It's going to be found, as everything decent in the last 35 years has been, at some little hole in the wall in Sunnyvale or Bangalore.

I was trying to find the name of the combined company [seems like they haven't come up with a name yet, but they are busily giving each other cushy jobs] and I had to laugh when I saw the merger described in Forbes as "sub-scale" less than compelling," True dat.

Posted by Richard Cauley at July 28, 2006 10:03 PM

I'm not that bothered about the movie industry however I do agree with the view that creating giant monolythic companies and then expect them to be "agile" is pie in the sky thinking. Lets face it, the two companies will look for cost savings by taking out duplication, spend a fortune alligning processes and will then sell off some bits that son't fit. Hardly innovative leadership!

Posted by Bill Quinn at July 29, 2006 11:49 PM

I guess Alcatel and Lucent believe in the thesis "big is beautiful". Now they will be big enough to challenge dear old swedish Ericsson on the wireless network markets worldwide. This is what the reporters working for financial magazines believe at least. Ericsson acquired Marconi not a long time ago. They too hope that this purchase will boost their own research and development efforts.
Well I doubt it. You can't buy yourself into success. It requires talented and innovative people. Ericsson should have spent that money developing new smashing products on their own instead. It is a sympthom of a leadership that lacks vision. This is what happens when you put old accountants on top positions in a company. What shall we do with our money? I have an idea; let's buy yet another company!
I agree with Mr Quinns remark; this is not creative and innovative thinking. Do you know what Ericsson is doing right now? Yup you read my thoughts. They are doing a six sigma improvement project in order to reduce costs. I know Mr Tom Peters hate that stuff. And so do I.

Posted by Marcus Andersson at July 31, 2006 11:35 AM

Goliath wasn't agile.

On the movie topic...

Give me the songs of a nation and it matters not who makes it's laws.
-Plato

Plato knew it a long time ago. Entertainment shapes culture. H'wood does get that point. That is precisely why there is so much entertainment that gets produced that has an agenda laced story.

To Daniel M. Harrison,
Your point about H'wood "business sense" works...if you apply logic. Unfortunately, logic does not always prevail in H'wood. You are wrong that they wouldn't make a movie knowing it could lose money. No offense brother, but you don't know Hollywood. Agendas rule. Egos are too big for logic to prevail. Don't think H'wood has an agenda? You might want to climb out from under that rock.

Posted by tango5 at August 3, 2006 9:30 AM