Comments on: Focus, In Memoriam

By: Sam Davidson

Sam Davidson — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:35:14 +0000

Great line: “Focus isn’t as fun. Its just not as exciting. But it is profitable.”

I agree. While it’s not the only thing that has hampered UA, it is true in nearly any industry. Jim Collins echoes this in “Good to Great,” calling it a hedgehog concept.

And, good point about Apple. They’re not a computer company or a music company. They’re an innovation company.

By: Dustin

Dustin — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:41:15 +0000

Great response Jeff…appreciate your thoughts. All great questions. I think the focus problem is one that actually allows innovation and growth within discpline. So while it seems that putting your eggs in a bunch of different baskets spreads your risks, it actually increases the risk that a brand will be known for little more than the folks that do x, y, z, & (oh, btw) d. Within endless options in today’s marketplace, the less hyper-focused, the more risk a brand runs to loosing its dominance of a specific category within the consumer’s mind. I think its not a matter of being able to add to, expand, and grow one’s business – its more a matter of how to do so.

So, for example, with Apple – their focus on innovation and ‘think different’ has allowed them to create more than just computers – they’ve created iPods, iPhones, and on. Its computing technology for more than just the traditionally thought of screen + keyboard computer experience. So they’ve grown, but remained focused. Walmart is much the same with their growth from just a store of wares to adding groceries. Same brand focus, but expansion occurred within discipline.

The big question is not ‘to grow or not to grow?’, but ‘to grow here or to grow there?’. Where you grow, and the discipline to remain focused while doing so, is one of the hardest, yet most rewarding parts of branding at its best.

By: uberVU - social comments

uberVU - social comments — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:20:13 +0000

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by matchstic: Under Armour losing focus, profits. http://matchstic.com/blog/?p=3878...

By: Jeff Rickard

Jeff Rickard — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:48:10 +0000

I think the point is valid, but the conclusion is a little unfair. Under Armour carved out a niche within the sports apparel field, focusing on the “athletic under garment” because the likes of Nike et al simply weren’t playing in that specific space. Result, boom growth. They were alone in the field, basically. With Under Armour’s booming success, it garnered the competitive attention of Nike and others (I assume) who moved quickly to participate. In the computing world, Under Armour would’ve been bought and folded into a Nike. Instead, Nike moved to compete in this space. Why not? Nike already has the infrastructure (production, distribution, marketing etc.) to get up to speed quickly. And now Under Armour has to decide how to maintain growth in a much tighter marketplace. Is not maintaining focus the reason the financials are trending downward? Not sure. Are “shoes” the right answer? I would guess not; it will be hard to out-innovate in that space, but the under armour idea may be a once in a lifetime idea. What do you do next? It has to be tough to figure that out. What do you do in the meantime?

I guess my question is, in this case, how do you see hyper-focus as the solution to solving the competition problem? And is not safer (smarter) to hedge your bets a bit? Eggs in a bunch of baskets…in an attempt to find a soft spot?

I look forward to hearing about Starbucks, and how you interpret their spread of focus…