Actually, You Do Want to Reinvent the Wheel - Lessons on Product Innovation from Hollywood

Actually, You Do Want to Reinvent the Wheel - Lessons on Product Innovation from Hollywood

Excerpted from free to access, much longer column available at Marketing Week.

Originally movies were a 90-minute narrative that never occurred again. When Humphrey Bogart told Claude Rains at the end of Casablanca that this was going to be “the beginning of a beautiful friendship” we did not get to see how that played out in sequel called ‘Casablanca II – Friends Indeed’. The final, famous Rosebud scene in Citizen Kane did not lead to a prequel in which a young Charles Foster Kane learns to love and laugh in ‘Young Boy Kane – The Sledding years’. And when ET finally made it onto the spaceship and flew home we did not get to see him actually touch down on an alien planet in ‘ET2 – Return to Planet Xylox’.

Of course, there were exceptions. Star Wars was always designed to be a series and its various sequels and prequels opened the eyes of many in Hollywood to the commercial possibilities of re-using characters in further films. The Godfather Part II proved that a subsequent variation can sometimes prove superior to the original. But in the 20th Century these were exceptions to an otherwise widespread rule that you made a movie and then you started again with a blank page.

Things really started to change in the nascent 21st Century as movie studios realised that coming up with a successful new script, new characters and new settings was an incredibly hard thing to replicate. Why not take a success and the characters that audiences had already warmed to and take that journey further? Rather than invent a new movie each time, why not re-invent around an existing blockbuster instead?

The transition is stunning as you can see from the table above (original Box Office data courtesy of Box Office Mojo & IMDB). In the eighties only two of the top grossing films at the US box office were re-invented variants of earlier movie incarnations: The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi. It was a similar story in the next decade as only two re-worked movies – The Phantom Menace and Terminator 2 – made the top ten list for the nineties. But by the noughties the number leaps to eight out of ten with the likes of Harry Potter, Spider-Man, Toy Story and the Pirates of the Caribbean all remaking themselves into new movie offerings. So far six of the top seven movies this decade have also been re-worked movies with the Avengers, more Star Wars, Lego and the Hunger Games all re-using their initial movies to make more movies.

The lesson for brands should be clear. Rather than reaching far and wide for “disruptive” innovations that usually fail and often cost the earth, learn to innovate closer to home. First cut back the SKUs so that the successful products become the focus once again. Then, interrogate their formulas, their consumption and their lead users for potentially lucrative ways to innovate around the existing offer to make even more money. It’s not just a safer and less expensive way to create products, in many cases the subsequent innovations are more satisfying and commercially successful than the original products that inspired them.

Of course creative geniuses and film fans will bemoan the fact that this focus on reworking existing IP is less innovative and ultimately rewarding from a creative point of view. I totally agree. But I work in marketing, not creativity and the valencing of total innovation over commercial impact is one that haunts our industry. The continued commercial success of the global movie industry in box office terms stands as a perfect illustration of the commercial power of smaller, less radical innovation to deliver significant financial returns. Yes, we might not get so many amazing and innovative new films, but its called show business not show innovation for a reason.

It's an interesting insight, and one I talk about at length here in my column for Marketing Week in the context of work I have been doing with a large beauty brand.

Comments and insights very welcome.

Wade Kingsley

Founder of The Ideas Business | The Creative Coach | Morning Musely | Ideasy | Founding Partner, adroitly | Co-Founder, May8 | AU Ambassador World Creativity & Innovation | #faciliatator #moderator #keynotespeaker

7 年

Good piece here Olivia Santilli

回复

There could be an interesting distinction between commercial benefit to the business versus the category. I agree that innovation close to the core is better for a business but maybe revolutionary innovation brings excitement to a category, which is needed for long term commercial health for all in that category.

Rob Blackie

Founder - helping innovators tell the right story at the right time

7 年

At a more tactical level I often see clients who don't know what already works for them. For instance a common B2B error is not to know what thought leadership content gets engaged with by your most valuable customers. The data is always there - just rarely accessed. Similarly in B2C we often find that if you cut out the worst performing 10-20% of content you can save those resources with almost no loss of impact.

回复
Nick Hardman

Doing more work for same pay? | Micromanaged? | Skills being commoditzed? | Feeling under-utilized? | It's Time To Find Your Calling

7 年

Hollywood sucks

回复
Mark Hobart

Managing Partner, TRA Melbourne

7 年

It depends on the brand and category context. For a brand with momentum, this makes perfect sense. I have seen some companies recently implement just this approach - focus on core brands and hero products, get it right then innovate incrementally from there. For declining brands in declining categories (ie many traditional fmcg categories in Australia) this is unlikely to turn the ship around

回复

要查看或添加评论,请登录

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了