Ali vs. Jobs: The Curse of Brand
Posted by Saneel Radia | February 5, 2010
I’ve been thinking about the iPad backlash and decided it isn’t because the device is subpar. Instead, the device is disappointing to many. When I ask myself why, I see a rare but significant problem for Apple: the Curse of Brand. It’s a syndrome that occurs when the expectations of a brand are so precise (and high) that it can only appease them in a very specific way. I thought of other brands that have suffered from the Curse of Brand and realized the same could be said of Muhammad Ali. In fact, looking at these two brands side by side, I’ve concluded Jobs strategically navigated this curse, while Ali did not.
Apple and Muhammad Ali are two of the most prolific brands in history. One is arguably the technology company with the most passionate following and the other was once the most famous athlete (if not man) in the world. Both dealt with the Curse of Brand. Apple did so with the launch of its iPad and Ali in his rivalry with Joe Frazier.
From 1967 to 1971 Ali was an undefeated boxer who was suspended from his sport because of his refusal to fight in the Vietnam War. During that period, Joe Frazier rose to prominence as the undefeated heavyweight champion. However, without having the opportunity to fight Ali, his title was marred by a cultural “asterisk.” Ali and Frazier eventually went on to fight three different times, Ali winning two.
What many people don’t know is that Ali and Frazier actually had a relationship prior to their first fight (Ali was reinstated, in part due to Frazier’s efforts on his behalf). The two considered themselves friends and, according to Frazier, he even loaned Ali money during his suspension. This is shocking for most people who only know the relationship as one of the bitterest rivalries in sports history. (Frazier in a recent documentary takes subtle credit for Ali’s Parkinson’s disease and coldly states that God gave Ali what he deserved).
How did this relationship end up here? Ali was consumed by the Curse of Brand. He was re-entering a sport he once dominated and was known for his provocative, charismatic shenanigans. The poetry with which he insulted rivals and rattled opponents was the calling card of this man who’d been out of the sport’s spotlight for years. So, what did Ali do upon his return? He attacked Frazier verbally with barbs that struck a deep chord (understandably, as he called Frazier everything from “gorilla” to “Uncle Tom” at a time when race relations in the U.S. were the tensest in history). He gave the crowd exactly what they wanted. The press ate up the sound bites, replaying them incessantly. His fan base and influence grew before each Frazier fight (there were three). Yet, Ali had acted in ways he later regretted. Not too publicly of course—it was Ali after all. But he did apologize to Frazier (indirectly) after the final epic fight and retracted comments he made in various pockets for years to come. He made bad decisions (by his own value system) because he believed he had to live up to a certain set of expectations.
Looking at the reaction to the iPad these last 2 weeks, it accomplished the opposite of any Ali press event. I was stunned that such a significant launch could elicit a reaction I can only summarize as a universal “meh” (a feeling Denuologist Caroline will fight for until her dying day). How could a brand viewed by many as incapable of doing wrong ever leave so many people shrugging? Apple’s pre-announcement hype was nothing short of frenzy. And understandably so. When Apple released the iPhone and Macbook Air, both devices extracted a global cooing sound from consumers. The iPad certainly did not. But it might have if it wasn’t an Apple product.
The iPad is an unprecedented device in terms of usage. It falls between phone and laptop, a rapidly growing space. Yet, because it’s a technology region between two existing, familiar points, people were left disappointed. So, the usage is new, but the device doesn’t feel new. Isn’t it just a big iPhone? Or just a cooler netbook?
Once again, it’s the Curse of Brand. If Apple is known for innovation and unprecedented design (see Apple’s brandtags here), this particular device actually suffered from the pre-launch buzz. It was innovative consumer usage, not innovative tech or design. Thus, expectations were inadvertently set by the brand long ago that the product couldn’t (and dare I say shouldn’t) deliver.
Which is exactly why I give Apple kudos. Time will tell, but I’m betting the iPad will be a success. It uniquely fits in a usage gap that only netbooks could feasibly occupy, and I just don’t think cloud technology has enough appeal to consumers yet (not to mention the hardware limitations as entertainment devices). Apple knew the expectations of its brand and still built a product many people don’t yet know they want. Think about it: the same could have been said of the iPod. The iPad is a highly strategic decision that deftly avoided the much bigger trap of succumbing to the pressure of its brand.
When I hear Jobs’ vision for the iPad, I see a man that isn’t letting the brand decide anything for him. His vision for the future is the core decision engine. That takes courage and a strong will in the face of detractors, two traits most people would attribute to Ali. However, Jobs applied these traits to challenge the Curse of Brand. Ali certainly did not. He left with a heavyweight title, but long-term regret about his decisions. I don’t think Jobs will have many regrets at all. In fact, I think he’ll retire with a title of his own: a man that better understood the role of brand than any company leader in history.
And that kinda makes me want to curse with envy.
Patience is what I think of when I heard about the iPad. Patience is what made the iPod become what it is now. Patience is what made the iPhone become what it is now. And patience will allow Apple to see how everyone interacts with this new device. This is Apple’s little secret. They are great at observing how consumers interact with their toys. The iPad has great potential, we just have not seen what it can do yet.
Unfortunately, the risk is will companies or advertisers pump money into discovering new things. Like the iPhone, probably not so much until independent and underground developers just come out with their own apps. Apple and big time developers tend to explore big ideas and let other companies/independents explore some of the more involved ideas. Interesting business model if you can afford it: throw some money at an idea and see how the public responds to it and to the open ended software developers ideas.
I think the iPad has great potential to become part of the public’s everyday use. The idea of centralizing your everyday needs into one device that is user friendly and can interact with other exterior devices is powerful. Steve Jobs is no dope. He creates and we will follow.
[...] from: Ali vs. Jobs: The Curse of Brand | Denuology: The Observation and … Share and [...]
Love the analogy.
Apple is very much in a fight. One of their longtime rivals in Microsoft seems older now and unable to find their form. Other prospective rivals like Sony have never delivered on their promise. Nintendo feels like it might be capable of stepping up – the Wii for me, has lots of parallels with the iphone in terms of big innovation jumps. Could they step up and fight Apple? What is Amazon up to – if Apple is building around the store concept, seems like Amazon is the organization to beat.
But the real worry for Apple, I think, is a new contender, who is likely fitter, smarter and has more tools then anyone they have fought so far. Put another way, I think Ali may be stepping into a new game – something less like boxing and more like MMA. Maybe this is a GSP vs Ali matchup. Jobs seems scared – it felt like the iPad was not only reaching in terms of how important it might be, but an attempt to shift the conversation away from a growing world of Android in mobile.
Ali and Apple are also similar in that Apple likes to talk trash. There product announcements are full of awesome, revolutionary, game changing language. Google developed a new mobile OS and some of the best cloud computing services and siad well, basically nothing. They basically gave away some phones and put an ad on their homepage. They speak by knocking people out – not telling people they are going too. From a brand perspective, some people are going to love the quiet new challenger, who just knocks people out, smiles and leaves the ring.
This is the most interesting part of the battle Apple is in now. They will use all the skill and reality distortion that we love them for while competing against someone who is really going to hurt them and shake their confidence.. That said, so much can happen. It looks like MMA now, but Microsoft may jump in the ring and also start roughing up Google and who knows what hardware vendors like Motorola, HTC, et al will do,
Looking forward to a great fight.
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by denuology: Steve Jobs beat Muhammad Ali in overcoming the Curse of Brand. @saneel explains why: http://bit.ly/b2uiO1 #iPad #apple…
Loved the article but there’s more here than simply brand. The iPad or any future Apple product is going to suffer because the business model has become all too clear…
Apple is AOL on steroids.
I own an iPhone and waited breathlessly for the Tablet to help sway me toward the rest of Apple’s line of products. It did the opposite, which was completely unexpected.
I was always ambivalent toward Apple though I loved my phone (there are other options now that I intend to pursue). Now I think that Apple is simply a dangerous tech company creating a closed, ‘bleed the consumer dry for every bit of code’ company.
Whether you like the alternatives or not – at least they provide you options and come with standards built-in that are considered features on Apple products. Apple has now seen fit to decide what technologies to support and which ones they should kill off.
I don’t like flash but I need it. I have eBook and video formats that I’m not certain are supported by Apple. I have USB devices that I need to get data and media from and do NOT want to depend solely on iStores for data.
I think Apple is bullying it’s customers in much the same way Ali bullied his competitors. This is where the analogy between these two brands begins to diverge.
Ali put on a show for his “customers”. We got value out of it from a purely entertainment standpoint. Jobs has become a snake-oil salesman peddling closed, dystopian solutions. He doesn’t even pretend to be a benevolent dictator. There’s no value here except among the most ignorant of users.
Great comments here across the board, guys. Thanks.
@david, your point about patience is well taken. I think Apple has learned patience recently though. I can’t say the first Jobs (i.e., before the ousting and return) was ever patient in his leadership. Then again, the whole idea of a more open app store, etc is new to them, so it will be interesting to see what lessons they took from that experience.
@shaun, think you’re dead on. One of Rishad’s favorite quotes is “the future comes from the slime.” No one is ever ousted by a competitor they see coming. I think Apple has broadened its view of the slime a bit recently, thus the Quatro purchase. I’m also curious what their next move on Apple TV will be as a result. Patience (to Dave’s point) or cut and run?
@Pax “AOL on steroids” is a really unique perspective. Your point about bullying vs. providing entertainment is correct. After all, the analogy can only go so far between man and business. But, I’ve always likened it to a club with a long line out front. It has to be worth the wait for those people. The question remains: how many of them are there and how long are they willing to wait in line? With Apple those quantities are odd. The former is never huge, but the latter? Well it’s always mind blowingly long.
[...] Yes one can watch television on the computer and read books on the phone, but these are tertiary benefits of the dominant role for each device, which are creating and communicating. They fall in a usage gap, as discussed here. [...]