Every time I'd visit I'd hear that word, mainstream, and wondered if it was some derivative of their acquired darlings that had yet to go through the process of assimilation. acquisitions should be left to a minor role, but the in-house projects and people trying to advance the organization as what is mainstream changes and can be changed.
Maybe Google will suffer the same as they get older and its a plight of any successful company in a dynamic market. They are still young enough to let YouTube eclipse Google Video. The Innovator's Dilemma doesn't explain it enough when a good part of the organization was doing more than playing lip-service to the change. There was a tremendous opportunity with the right talent and assets to present a new product strategy that either revive or destroyed old assets with a social overlay. But perhaps with the founding management they couldn't get past mainstreaming products, relatively depreciating assets, misdirected attention and playing with monetization embedded in the social fabric. They could have defined their own game.
Enough writing in the present tense. The point of this post isn't lost opportunities at Yahoo! (although I am asking the question why). Its the sad fact that when the Microsoft merger goes through, it will destroy the best parts of value and culture. When Microsoft owns Yahoo!, do you think it will side in favor of mainstreaming, or the next revision? My guess us uncreative destruction.
Found an error or have a suggestion? Let us know and we'll review it.
Suggest a Correction
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!