Every year shortly before New Year’s Eve, the same discussion starts on social media: “Are fireworks really necessary?” or “Should fireworks be banned?”. As exciting and heated as this discussion is – and to a certain extent necessary – it is an example of how some companies have failed to recognize the signs of the times and how many companies lack an overarching corporate vision. A few spontaneous thoughts!
Readers of my blog may know that I am a follower of Simon Sinek and his theory of the ‘Golden Circle’. Some time ago, I “developed” the ‘Golden Pyramid‘ as a small further development of this theory and tried to incorporate points from content marketing into it. But why is Simon Sinek’s ‘Golden Circle’ important for fireworks and the fireworks industry?
The Golden Circle – Find your ‘WHY’!
Admittedly, Simon Sinek’s “The Golden Circle” is the Bayern Munich of current theories. The risk you take by identifying yourself as a supporter of this theory is very small, and Simon Sinek’s fan community is very large. And I would love to say at this point that I was already a fan of this theory before it was cool. But never mind. In 2020/2021, the basic message is more important than ever.
Adreas Pihan has written a detailed article about the theory on 121Watt. The basis is and remains the sentence:
Simon Sinek is always concerned with how companies find their innermost vision – their ‘WHY’ – and build a company on this that also functions independently of products. And that’s the point of this article.
[also worth reading: Andreas Diehl – Why, How, What – Simon Sinek’s Golden Circle as a management tool]
Fireworks on New Year’s Eve – it was never about “rockets”!
Inspired by Stefan Wickenhäuser’s article “Change unfortunately overslept“, I set out to look at the topic from a slightly broader perspective. Stefan (we know each other personally, so I’m switching to ‘you’ here) describes very nicely how firework manufacturers fear for their survival due to the impending ban on fireworks and, to a certain extent, the voluntary renunciation of consumers and the associated decline in sales. He quotes a managing director from a Handelsblatt interview: “We would not survive a ban on fireworks”.
We have to ask ourselves the fundamental question: What exactly are fireworks? For many, fireworks – as an overall construct – are the “colorful little pictures” that are conjured up in the sky on New Year’s Eve or at a city festival. But that’s not quite true. Fireworks, or rather a New Year’s Eve rocket, actually consists of two parts. One is the propelling force [I assume in some form of black powder] and the other is the “image” or the colorful figure that appears in the sky. And if you take a closer look at the impending ban on fireworks, it’s not about banning the colorful images, but purely about the driving force and the way in which the images are ultimately created. The fireworks ban should actually be called the “black powder ban”.
Simon Sinek is always concerned with how companies find their innermost vision – their ‘WHY’ – and build a company on this that also functions independently of products. And that’s the point of this article.
Fireworks on New Year’s Eve – it was never about “rockets”!
Inspired by Stefan Wickenhäuser’s article “Change unfortunately overslept“, I set out to look at the topic from a slightly broader perspective. Stefan (we know each other personally, so I’m switching to ‘you’ here) describes very nicely how firework manufacturers fear for their survival due to the impending ban on fireworks and, to a certain extent, the voluntary renunciation of consumers and the associated decline in sales. He quotes a managing director from a Handelsblatt interview: “We would not survive a ban on fireworks”.
We have to ask ourselves the fundamental question: What exactly are fireworks? For many, fireworks – as an overall construct – are the “colorful little pictures” that are conjured up in the sky on New Year’s Eve or at a city festival. [Note: I’m leaving the classic “firecrackers” out of this view*]. But that’s not quite true. Fireworks, or rather a New Year’s Eve rocket, actually consists of two parts. One is the propelling force [I assume in some form of black powder] and the other is the “image” or the colorful figure that appears in the sky. And if you take a closer look at the impending ban on fireworks, it’s not about banning the colorful images, but purely about the driving force and the way in which the images are ultimately created. The fireworks ban should actually be called the “black powder ban”.
Companies have certainly made significant improvements to fireworks in recent decades. The rockets have become lighter, cheaper, more beautiful, more colorful, etc. There was never any disruption. It was always “just” a case of making small adjustments.
And this is where we come full circle to the vision of a company and Simon Sinek’s ‘WHY’. Of course, I and all of us cannot look inside every (fireworks) company. Nevertheless, it can be said that the subject of fireworks has never really been about rockets. It has always been primarily** about the images that are conjured up in the night sky. If the fireworks producers [note: generalization] had, for example, set up the vision (‘WHY’) “We inspire the visitors of a city festival” or “We make New Year’s Eve the most beautiful evening of the year” and then defined the ‘HOW’ as, for example, “By conjuring up beautiful colorful images in the night sky”, then the ‘WHAT’ might have been the rocket in the past, but today it would be the drone or an oversized beamer/projector.
Overarching vision is crucial – or: Don’t think from the (end) product!
They have recognized the demand for fireworks, perhaps a hundred years ago and in the third generation, and have become so focused on “rockets” as the only way to make fireworks that they have completely ignored the market over the years. They confused fireworks with “black powder rockets” and concentrated purely on optimizing this technology.
And now young programmers – people who have probably never been in the “rocket or fireworks industry” – are coming along and doing what is actually the basic idea behind fireworks with drones – only better, more beautiful, cheaper and more CO2-friendly, etc.
Think broader – recognize the concept!
In his column “Abgekratzt” (Website Boosting #65), Karl Kratz aptly described the situation using the example of the candle or light bulb. The light bulb was not invented by making the candle better. Otherwise they would have simply invented a candle that burns longer and more cheaply.
And the same applies to LEDs:
Henry Ford’s quote, which is always popular, also fits here:
Please note: Some sources question whether Henry Ford ever said this quote. However, people like to put this quote in his mouth. But the same insight applies here too. It was never about horses. It was always about faster, easier and cheaper transportation. The horse was just a means to an end. Just like the rocket is only a means to an end for pictures in the night sky and the petrol car is only a means of mobility.
In recent years, you can find videos on the internet showing how companies use drones to conjure up great images, sculptures and even entire motion sequences in the night sky. And here, too, the circle closes. Whether drones, electric cars, hydrogen planes, smartphones, etc., if the end product is “cool”, customers will want the new product. My thesis: In a few years, we will be conjuring up such beautiful images in the sky with drones that we will be scratching our heads as to how we were able to hold on to (old) “black powder rockets” for so long. These will seem boring to us. If the “new product” is better than the “old product”, people will switch. [Important: There is a rumor going around on the Internet that some videos of this type have been manipulated with graphics software. This cannot be analyzed at this point.]
Can’t stop watching this Christmas drone show pic.twitter.com/w1mp9lxS6p
— Rob N Roll (@thegallowboob) November 26, 2020
The customer is interested in the product and its personal benefits. And I wouldn’t disagree with this point at all. However, I believe that these are two different points of view. The ‘WHY’ comes from within and determines not only marketing, but the entire DNA of a company, right through to product development. Think different” can – if it is thought through to the end – steer all departments in a company in such a way that in the end precisely the product comes onto the market that inspires the customer on several levels or brings the customer exactly the benefit that he is looking for and which he has not found in any other product so far – even if it is only an image gain. And of course a clear ‘WHY’ and the “Think different” from Apple is not a sure-fire success. There are plenty of examples in Apple’s company history where the “Think different” approach has completely bypassed the market and customers – and has therefore produced huge flops.
Conclusion – a corporate vision and a ‘WHY’ makes you independent:
A brief outline of Stefan Wickenhäuser’s article has turned into a 4-page essay. However, we as a society and therefore almost all companies are (once again) at a crossroads. Many companies have focused too long on the product itself and too little on the vision and are now being overtaken by (watch out for the buzzword) disruption from companies that actually have nothing to do with the original product or the industry. Airbnb has more overnight stays or revenue than the Hilton hotel chain and Uber and co. arrange more cab rides than large cab companies themselves. But neither Airbnb nor Uber own hotels or cabs.***
So move away from the product and towards an overarching vision that can still be fulfilled even if the original product is no longer attractive due to the market, the law or the competition. Otherwise you end up like the carriage manufacturers, horse breeders or fireworks producers. One day you wake up and nobody buys the product anymore or some young programmers do the job better.
* If you like, you could even start the same discussion with “firecrackers”. What is a firecracker? Is a firecracker the black powder or is a firecracker simply an object that produces a (safe) bang? And couldn’t this bang also be produced without black powder?
** Of course there will always be a certain percentage of consumers who want rockets – i.e. black powder. Just as there will be consumers who still want gasoline cars and classic cars or even horses. However, it is always a question of analyzing the majority and the broad masses. It will never be possible to make a 100% statement. Even today, there are still horse breeders who can live more than well from their income, yet none of us ride horses to work.
*** For the sake of simplicity, I will not go into the legal and moral aspects of these business models at this point.
