On the importance of the brand

I started my professional life at a company that was fascinating. Innovative, at the forefront of IT:
The first company to produce network computers, which had a worldwide e-mail system as early as 1980 (!!!). In the mid-80s, more than 120,000 employees were involved in this system, not only technically but also in terms of decision-making. All this made us proud. Even today, I fall into talking about "we" when I talk about my time at that company. We had cutting-edge technology and staffing programs. We were fast-growing and profitable; we were No. 2 in the world behind IBM. But who knew that? Digital Equipment Corportion, or DEC, was the name of this global heavyweight. A groundbreaking name. And yet, did you know it? Probably not.

Because there was one big weakness: they didn't care much about marketing and they didn't care much about sales people. After all, they were technical leaders, innovative, what did they need marketing for? That was what all the consultants said when they recommended strengthening marketing and building a strong brand. But there was strong competition. Behind IBM (and in Germany also behind Siemens), the DEC sales people had a hard time. It is still a common saying today that no one has ever been fired for choosing IBM. But that still didn't lead DEC to think about marketing or branding. Arrogantly, people in GL and sales, which actually consisted of technical consultants, said to themselves "these security-conscious, fearful decision-makers don't deserve our innovative and far superior products at all."And you only talked to the technically savvy specialists anyway, and even those were met with a "bird, eat or die" attitude..

And then, suddenly there was the PC at the beginning of 1980. Sure, DEC had one in the drawer, but the management was not convinced. Ken Olsen, the founder, said: "What are laymen supposed to do with such a device? It can only be a better typewriter. Then other manufacturers of medium-sized calculators entered the market, and they were faster with their development. The next generation of their own calculators was delayed and suddenly they were overtaken.
That was the beginning of the end. Half-hearted attempts to survive with service or software did not help. 5 years later the company was sold, first to Compaq, they don't exist anymore either, and then to HP. And with that it disappeared.

There was simply no brand equity, no awareness, no trust in the brand. No convinced full-blooded sales people who knew what customers needed and who helped to bridge the difficult times. IBM also had a hard time with the new developments, but the IBM brand equity lasted until they could reinvent themselves as a service provider. And HP had always been much more aligned with the needs of its target groups than "my" company, thus fulfilling one of the basic requirements for good marketing.

What do we learn from this?

It's not just today that innovation orientation and technical progress are good and often necessary for survival, but that alone is not enough:
Innovation must be aligned with the needs of customers, it is important to find useful and groundbreaking products & solutions.
In addition, you need marketing measures for a strong brand that creates trust.
And you need to build the brand quickly. In today's fast-moving times, competitors, copycats and new inventors are on the market in the shortest possible time. The technical lead is shrinking and the expiry time of innovations, products and companies is getting shorter and shorter.