文化影响周期：不可不知的企业生存指南

摘要: 这个分析手段非常的实用。通过它我们可以一目了然的看到：苹果公司也许暂时的取悦了那些对新iPhone使用有困难的客户，但是站在文化影响的角度上，苹果处在了一个危险点上。这个文化影响周期不是对于企业的产品发展阶段的分析，而是基于企业所体现出来的文化对于用户的影响的...

这个分析手段非常的实用。通过它我们可以一目了然的看到：苹果公司也许暂时的取悦了那些对新iPhone使用有困难的客户，但是站在文化影响的角度上，苹果处在了一个危险点上。这个文化影响周期不是对于企业的产品发展阶段的分析，而是基于企业所体现出来的文化对于用户的影响的分析。因此，对于创业者来说，其中包含的意义更大。因为企业的产品可以更迭，但企业所体现出来的文化在客户心中的影响延续要漫长的多。

利用文化影响周期，不但可以很清楚的看到当今世界上那些大公司的发展阶段以及接下来的走势，对于我们创业者自己而言，也可以更好的制定和改进自己的外部文化传播方向，不单单要推产品，更重要的是要把文化也打包进来，以文化牌出击，从而竭力规避单一产品对于用户心智的影响。这方面，国内的豆瓣、网易、42区等都有一些有益的探索，有更多的案例也希望大家提供，供更多的人参考。

文化影响周期

世界上最成功的几个公司都经历了对整个社会造成的可以被感觉到的文化影响周期上的6个阶段。为了说明我的观点，我把这个周期和它如何划分画在了下面：

初创阶段（Alpha world）

初创阶段，在这第一个阶段里，一些早期的接受者开始了解这个公司以及公司的产品，并且开始尝试。很多公司往往没有在这个阶段里脱颖而出。

至于为什么他们没有成功进入下一个阶段，里面有很多原因。可能是他们的产品不好；可能是产品定位到了错误的市场；可能是他们的产品过早进入了市场；可能是公司没有很好的把他们介绍推广给客户，还有其他很多原因。

当然，对于能成功进入下一个循环的公司，他们往往在执行这个产品以及公司的战略，给投资者好的回报，给用户好的体验价值这些方面都做的非常好。

这些都将使公司变得有活力，而且不用面对被淘汰。

大规模应用阶段(The Land of Mass Adoption)

在大规模应用阶段，公司开始被IT界以外的人所接触并使用，呈现出了明显的上升。

这类公司中，很多都是在初创阶段里待了很久，而且在所定位的利基市场里完全能取得足够的利润，并不急着进入下一阶段的。

在这一阶段里，公司必须将高科技因素遮掩起来，用来吸引大众。大众不会再像能够原谅在初创阶段的那些公司一样宽恕这一阶段的公司，所以公司必须好好的来适应这个市场。公司必须向那些早期接受者展现他们能够持续的向用户提供最前沿的东西，而且在身处主流中的同时能够向主流用户指出准确的时间及所拥有的信息来提供最新的尝试。

巅峰阶段（Main stream Mountain）

巅峰阶段是很多公司都想要达到的地方。在那里，公司得到了很大的经济上的成功，而且非常接近了文化领域的顶峰，不仅仅涉及了自己的产品，也能够在该产业中有影响力。很少的公司能进入这个阶段，而且更少的公司能够长期保持停留在这个阶段。绝大多数人都把这类公司当作一个完美的公司，作为追随的目标，并且相信它不会犯错。

在70年代，IBM凭借它的个人电脑进入了这个阶段。80年代，微软带着操作系统和配套office系统进入。而在21世纪的初期，谷歌的搜索引擎，在线广告模式，和YouTube视频网站进驻这里。

苹果现在正在巅峰阶段的最顶端，重新定义了个人电脑产业（电脑成为消费品）、音乐产业（电子产品成为配件）、电信产业（电话成为电脑）。 而正在巅峰阶段继续攀爬的Facebook，仅仅凭着关系网，正在变成世界上最庞大的网站。

不幸的是，大多数的公司，不可能永远待在那被瞻仰，终将会进入下坡路。

下坡路阶段（Dis grun tled Hills）

在下坡路阶段，公众对这些公司的期许开始改变。曾经被视为预示着美好的公司开始倍受怀疑。人们开始怀疑这些公司是不是拥有了太强大的力量，而且越来越意识到要反垄断。早期接受者开始寻找其他的提供商，与此同时，这些公司任何一个失误都将被用来证明公司存在漏洞。随着时间的推移，大量的用户开始转向，即使犹豫着却还是选择着它的产品，但是，当他们再推出新鲜的产品，用户不会再有那么大的劲头去争相购买了。

在此时，公司开始不那么容易取悦客户了。不管它做什么，公众都认为公司是在维护自己的利益，而不是为客户着想。公司可以申明他们很爱自己的用户，但是在用户心里，认为公司是自私自利的想法早已根深蒂固。

我冒着风险说，谷歌正在这个阶段里，他们开始担忧自己在搜索引擎界里的主控地位，虽然他们还在努力的尝试着变得社交化一些，从而来重新回到巅峰阶段上。然而关于个人隐私的问题，涉及搜索和广告的反垄断问题，以及其他负面的消息都在变得越来越频繁而扎眼。

文化影响丧失阶段（Canyons of Cultural Irrelevance）

当然，谷歌不需要担心自己会变得和微软公司一样，落入和文化不相干的山崖。在这一阶段，公司的产品不再和大群客户相关。

进入这一阶段的公司，一般曾经都是被认为世界上最伟大的公司。而且，这些公司也往往都在承受着在法律上被指认垄断的痛苦。比如70年代的IBM，还有80年代的微软。

当然，在这一阶段的公司并不是说没有办法盈利了。实际上，微软和IBM依靠已存的客户群体和多样的产品，在市场里仍然是大玩家。但是他们对产业里的影响和前一个阶段里的公司比较，实在是微乎其微。他们向客户传递自己所制造的产品总是路途艰辛的信息，而公司则采取小心的模仿其他公司产品的途经来推广（比如微软的Zune vs. iPod, 比如Windows phones vs. iPhones, 比如Microsoft kinect vs. Wii）。

公司可以在这个阶段维持十几年，甚至几个世纪，但是，无法再有能力对客户造成大的影响。

垂死阶段（Plains of  Corporate Death）

有些案例里，公司可以在前几个阶段里突然大红大紫，瞬间变的不可一世，但是因为这些产品或者想法根本无法再适应市场，继而陨灭。

这里，因为文化不相关，公司的钱或者资产再也无法变得有价值（比如Buggy Whip制造商们），夭折，只能还钱给投资者，最终停运并退出。

有些公司进入这个阶段是因为公司试图从原先的模式里得到转变（比如Nokia意识到应该从渔具制造商变成电话公司；或者WPP从一个电线和塑料公司变成变成世界上最大的广告群体）。

退出市场阶段（Take away）

6 Stages of Cultural Impact

• Business
• Technology

Apple may have tem­porar­ily appeased peo­ple who had prob­lems with their new iPhone but it is sit­ting at a dan­ger­ous point in terms of its cul­tural impact.

The Cul­tural Impact Cycle

Most suc­cess­ful com­pa­nies go through a 6 steps cycle where their cul­tural impact on soci­ety as a whole can be felt. For my pur­pose, I call it the mind­set cycle and it works as shown in the fig­ure below:

Alpha­world

In Alpha­word, the first step, a few early adopters are aware of the com­pany and its prod­ucts and test them out. This is gen­er­ally a stage most com­pa­nies do not get out of.

There are many rea­son for com­pa­nies not get­ting out of this space. Their prod­uct could be bad; their prod­uct could be tar­geted at the wrong mar­ket; their prod­uct could be too early in the mar­ket; the com­pany might have failed to explain its rel­e­vance to users; etc…

Ulti­mately, the main rea­son a com­pany gets out of this stage is that its team has done a very good job exe­cut­ing on the imple­men­ta­tion of a prod­uct and com­pany strat­egy, cre­at­ing value for its investors, and deliv­er­ing even more value to its users.

Those that make it out will be pros­per­ous and those that don’t will die.

The Land of Mass Adoption

The land of mass adop­tion then rep­re­sent a steep climb as a com­pany starts get­ting noticed by peo­ple out­side of the tech­nol­ogy world and non-technologists start using the application.

The major­ity of com­pa­nies that made it out of alpha­world spend a very long time in that area and can profit by tar­get­ing niches with­out hav­ing to move on to the next stage.

The land of mass adop­tion is an area where com­pa­nies are forced to shed some of their more tech­ni­cal attrib­utes (or hide them away) in order to appeal to a mass audi­ence. The mass audi­ence is not as for­giv­ing as peo­ple in alpha­world so the com­pany has to prop­erly adapt to the mar­ket. It’s a great bal­anc­ing act where the com­pany has to show early adopters that it can con­tinue deliv­er­ing cut­ting edge for them while talk­ing to the main­stream and fig­ur­ing out the right tim­ing and hand-holding to get main­stream users to start using some of those new attributes.

Main­stream Mountain

Main­stream moun­tain is where most com­pa­nies want to be. At that point, a com­pany achieves great eco­nomic suc­cess and is at close to the peak of its cul­tural rel­e­vance, impact­ing not only its own prod­uct but the indus­try it’s in. Very few com­pa­nies achieve that stage and even fewer stay there for a long time. The great major­ity of peo­ple look to the com­pany as the main provider of direc­tion and believe it can do no wrong.

In the 80s, IBM was there with its per­sonal com­put­ers. In the 90s, Microsoft was there with its Win­dows oper­at­ing sys­tem and Office Suite. In the first decade of the 21st cen­tury, the spot was held by Google with its dom­i­nant search engine, online adver­tis­ing model and YouTube video site.

Apple is cur­rently at the apex of main­stream moun­tain, hav­ing rede­fined the PC indus­try (com­put­ers as con­sump­tion), the music indus­try (dig­i­tal as default) and the tele­com indus­try (phones as com­put­ers). Face­book, with its social net­work is cur­rently climb­ing that moun­tain, hav­ing become the largest site in the world, built solely on the back of relationships.

Unfor­tu­nately, it is almost impos­si­ble to stay in that arena and the fall seems to even­tu­ally come for most companies.

Dis­grun­tled Hills

In the dis­grun­tled hills, the pub­lic per­cep­tion of a com­pany starts to turn. What was one seen as a benev­o­lent force for good is now being ques­tioned. Peo­ple start ques­tion­ing whether the com­pany is hold­ing too much power and the men­tion of anti-trust comes up more often. Early adopters start look­ing for alter­na­tive providers and any mis­step by the com­pany is seen as a major exam­ple of how flawed the com­pany is. Over time, the mass start turn­ing their back on the com­pany, reluc­tantly using its prod­ucts but no longer imbu­ing them with the kind of magic attrib­utes they granted to the company.

At this point, it seems the com­pany starts hav­ing prob­lems pleas­ing customers. No mat­ter what it does, the pub­lic looks to the com­pany as only pro­tect­ing its own inter­est and not those of its customers. The com­pany can claim that it loves its cus­tomers but sus­pi­cion seeps in and peo­ple get cyn­i­cal about such claims.

I would ven­ture that Google is cur­rently in that stage as peo­ple start wor­ry­ing about its dom­i­nance in the search space while mak­ing fun of its attempt at try­ing to get more social so it can go back to main­stream­ing moun­tain. Ques­tions around its pri­vacy prac­tices, men­tions of antitrust around search and adver­tis­ing, and other neg­a­tives seem to be applied to it with increas­ing frequency.

Canyons of Cul­tural Irrelevance

Of course, Google doesn’t have to worry as much as Microsoft, a com­pany now steeply going down the hill of cul­tural irrel­e­vance. At that stage, a company’s prod­uct are no longer seen as rel­e­vant to large swath of people.

Com­pa­nies that reach this stage were once seen as the most impor­tant com­pa­nies in the world. Often­times, such com­pa­nies also suf­fered legal set­back as they were taken to court and found guilty of monop­o­lis­tic prac­tices. Such was the case for IBM in the 80s and Microsoft in the 90s.

To say that a com­pany is in that space is not the same as say­ing the com­pany can­not be prof­itable. In fact, Microsoft an IBM are still very large play­ers with estab­lished cus­tomer bases and diver­si­fied prod­uct port­fo­lios. But their impact on the indus­try is mainly felt when they acquire a com­pany posi­tioned in one of the ear­lier mind­set stages. Their abil­ity to deliver internally-created prod­uct to an audi­ence that finds a par­tic­u­lar attach­ment to such prod­ucts seems hin­dered and the com­pa­nies take a cau­tious approach, offer­ing prod­uct that attempt to mir­ror fea­tures cre­ated by other play­ers (eg. Zune v. iPod, Win­dows phones vs. iPhones, Microsoft Kinect vs. Wii).

This stage can last decades or even cen­turies but, at that point, the com­pany is no longer hav­ing a sig­nif­i­cant impact on con­sumers’ mindsets.

Plains of Cor­po­rate Death

In some cases, a com­pany can flash through a lot of the ear­lier stages, be seen as extremely rel­e­vant for a while and then dis­ap­pear because their prod­ucts and ideas are no longer valid in the mar­ket­place at all.

This is a case where com­pa­nies have cash or assets that are no longer valu­able in any ways (eg. Buggy Whip man­u­fac­tur­ers) and, in those cases, com­pa­nies com­pletely fold and return money to their share­hold­ers, stop­ping to exist due to cul­tural irrelevance.

Few com­pa­nies enter that stage as the pre­vi­ous one allows them to morph into some­thing dif­fer­ent (eg. Nokia comes to mind, chang­ing from being a fish­ing boots man­u­fac­turer to a phone com­pany; or WPP going from being a wire and plas­tics com­pany to one of the largest adver­tis­ing groups in the world).

Take­away

There are many stages in the cul­tural impact of suc­cess­ful com­pa­nies but ulti­mately, every large tech com­pany has found itself dis­placed and replaced. Today, Apple sits at the apex of the tech indus­try, hav­ing achieved eco­nomic and cul­tural dom­i­nance, but the Anten­na­gate brouhaha (around claimed issues that the iPhone 4 antenna fails when the phone is held with­out a bumper) and the giz­modo inci­dent seems to point to some anx­i­ety within the early adopter com­mu­nity. Per­cep­tion of the com­pany appears to be turn­ing and, for the first time since Steve Jobs came back to Apple, there seems to be some level of unhap­pi­ness with its prod­ucts. Will the release of free bumpers help the sit­u­a­tion? Only time will tell.