We discuss the topic of disruption frequently. There is a reason for that.
At present, this is the greatest technological age in history. Some are forecasting that we will see more advancement in the next 10 years as compared to the last 100. That is an incredible statement if you consider what life was like in the 1920s.
Even if it is half of that, it is still an amazing accomplishment.
With technological advancement comes disruption. This is something that we see throughout history. There is no way to avoid it. Even the largest of entities get bumped off.
Why does this happen? How can some of the most powerful companies in an industry be disrupted? What pushes them to allow their businesses to be destroyed?
This is what we will uncover in this article.
Why Companies Cannot Fend Off Disruption
Most think that major corporations are blindsided. While this is often the case, it is not exclusive.
In fact, it is likely that many of the players within a company see what it happening. There are ones sounding the alarm yet to no avail.
Why is that?
By unfolding this, we see the opportunity for Web 3.0.
There is a major reason why the incumbents cannot fend off disruption. It is not incompetence although there are some who exhibit that. Instead, it is something more basic.
Disruption happens because the different stakeholders have interests that are misaligned.
Here is where the problems arise.
A large portion of those involved have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. That is why it is easier for a corporation to kill news ideas as opposed to changing. It usually only requires one stakeholder saying no to derail the entire process.
Hence, by default, the status quo wins.
At this moment, we see many industries that are facing the disruption and few are doing much about it. This is common since many of them cannot.
Example From The Automotive Industry
Legacy auto, for the most part, is dead.
This is something I have stated repeatedly and the numbers are starting to bear that out. Just wait until the new generation of auto makers, the Chinese, really gear up.
Why do I make this statement with so much certainty?
Jim Farley, the CEO of Ford, is one of the sharper minds heading up an auto company. I believe he understands fully what is going on AND wants to make the necessary changes. The problem is he cannot.
He has unions to deal with who want to maintain the status quo of building ICE vehicles. Dealerships still want to protect their interests, not wanting to invest the funds required to go electric. Even members within Farley's executive team question the general direction things are going.
The future is not only electric but also direct.
Farley is one who sees all this. Compare that with Mary Barra, CEO of General Motors, who does not care. She is going to ride this horse for the next couple years, collecting $40 million per year, and then jump ship. It will be the problem of someone else. She is a typical CEO, not thinking long term.
Opportunity For Web 3.0
Technology companies stand the greatest chance of being insulated against disruption. These entities tend to operate from the perspective of where change is a constant.
For this reason, they are always entering new markets in ways not expected. Sometimes there is a failure but, more often than not, it is a success. That is why we see Amazon becoming a broadcast company. Do we see the reverse where media outlets are looking to be cloud providers or online retailers? Obviously not.
That doesn't mean they are fully insulated. It does, however, show where the most likely vulnerabilities are.
For Web 3.0, this means targeting those industries that are primed for disruption. I often write how the broadcast industry is going to massively change over the next 5 years. This started long ago with cord cutting and only expanded.
Commerce is another arena that is on the table.
Walmart is one of the most lucrative companies in the World, at least in revenues. How long have they tried to become a major online player? While they did make progress, are they any threat to Amazon? This is another example of a company that knows what is needed and probably have a lot of executives in favor of the move. Yet, in spite of this, they cannot transform.
The reason, in my view, is Walmart has not become a platform. Without that, failure is to ensue. Naturally, Walmart will not go out of business yet they will keep falling further behind to Amazon as its uses network effects to gobble up a larger share.
With Web 3.0, we can look at the entire spectrum as a company. It is easy to fall prey of thinking with a Web 2.0 mindset. In an era where networks are abundant, this is going to create a huge shift.
Tribalism is going to reign supreme and each network feeds into the bigger picture. This is the entire premise of decentralization. All activities, interest, and focus is spread out. No longer are we dealing with the silos of a few major networks (companies). On the contrary, the size is smaller but the numbers a lot bigger.
In Conclusion
When it comes to most major businesses, they are simply incapable of fending off disruption. There are too many stakeholders who depend upon the status quo and will fight for that, thus ensuring their own demise.
This is often foreshadowed by turning to government entities to issue regulations that protect them. It is a move that is becoming less effective since we are dealing with a global population and technology is not geography dependent.
Also, we are to the point where governments will have to get more aggressive in their attractiveness. Options are starting to appear, meaning the monopoly governments had is going to wane. Those which are restrictive (abusive) will only end up seeing the businesses, and perhaps population, move elsewhere.
Technology accelerates this entire process.
Posted Using InLeo Alpha
I think with Web3, it is working in a way where by it places the companies at the center of control to an extent
I agree that the shareholders are a big hindrance for companies. A lot of them are too old school, while some of them are looking to protect their assets. The company moving to a different direction can greatly affect those assets. Unions and groups are something that I've overlooked. They are useless against the inevitability of Web3, but they are powerful in dealing with the current companies, and keeping the status quo which is bad for those companies. I can understand more now, on why these companies are unable to deal with these disruptions.
https://3speak.tv/rss/taskmaster4450.xml
I just posted about youre rss feed haha
Shure hope people will catch on Saturday on, I think from the hive side we could make a impact on the v4v community that is forming around podcasting 2.0 with bitcoin. A lot of people new to crypto looking for digital freedom, so it makes sence to reach out to them and tell them about #hive.
Also a great eatning opportunity for Hive users haha
You can earn hive past the 7 days window when someone streams sats on youre video.
Why are we not promoting that more?
Sry for bombing youre comment section haha
Greez task, youre a legend and I would love to hear youre opinion about it 🌞
Over 6 years, all I see is failed premise. The reaching out to people, with what? Nobody has ever answered what Hive offers outside of blogging for money which we do not want to discuss.
When marketing, one needs a product or service. If not, there is nothing but vaporware. What can we really point to on Hive?
Finally, look at the track record. The ability to onboard users in spite of thousands of people being all over twitter sucks. 2017 steem was more active than 2024 Hive.
I thought that shareholders and assets owner were helping the companies to run smoothly. How would technology affect their assets, if they think so?
Stakeholders are more than just shareholders.
Companies are really getting so much attached and it is really getting evident that Web3 is actually inspiring a lot of comparison
It is true that many corporations are blind. But currently, through the use of Web 3 and enjoying its benefits, corporations can be lifted from those problems. Thanks for sharing nice details about this.
This is one of the challenges of a company going public with strong share holders. I get your point here, more of telling your grandpa to sell his shares and come to web3. '?Are you nuts?' Is the common reply. They become soaked with old tech that they are afraid to change. That's why change when it comes, sweeps them away.
It is more than shareholders. That is the problem for entities. For example, management, unions, and shareholders are often on different pages with their own interests.
If you think of disruption as an iceberg and a business as a type of boat, it's easy to see why large corporations can't avert the iceberg. By the time they see it, it's too late to turn the vessel. A large freightliner takes longer to turn than a pontoon boat. Smaller is more versatile and larger is more powerful. As powerful as Ford is in the auto industry, that power translates to less versatility when a maneuver calls for quick action and change of direction.
Size and complexity certainly have a lot to do it with.
Within these entities, it comes down to power. This is not often recognizable. For example, even in a small office, a long time office manager might have more say than the doctor or business owner over certain matters.
This is true. One good influencer can do as much good from the bottom of the food chain as one from the top.
Yep. People do not realize where the power resides.
We are so use to top-down few every ponder the impact in the other direction.
Many people get stuck on the hierarchy and feel like they don't have power because they're at the bottom of the pack. They don't realize that personal sovereignty itself is a kind of power.
Too much of attachments hinders decentralization.
Here is your Proof of Brian. I think you meant #ProofOfBrain
Source