I had an interesting conversation with Kevin Corkum the other day. Kevin is a bit of a renaissance man—one foot firmly in tech (he engaged me to reboot brand strategy at the web theme company he was running) and the other in good old-fashioned brands (he also owns several high end bicycle shops specializing in European road bikes).

Hyperinnovation will send many venerable brands to the glue factory Tweet This Quote

When I asked Kevin if he saw any trends tipping the brand strategy applecart, he replied ‘hyperinnovation’ without skipping a beat. He believes tech has unleashed a beast of constant iteration and innovation that will rapidly change consumers’ expectations, and send many venerable brands to the glue factory. In his words:

Today, consumers aren’t waiting for new seasons, new launches—they want constant new, constant updates, constant improvement. That may be greens’ fees in tech, but it’s spreading to other sectors as well. You can drive your Tesla into the shop anytime for a software update that improves cruise control, for example. So where does that leave my VW—it wasn’t designed to be constantly upgraded. If I want a new model, I have to wait until next year.

I’m fascinated by the impact this hyperinnovation is going to have on sectors that—unlike tech—require massive retooling to effect even relatively small, iterative changes. Imagine if your favorite detergent went through 50 different bottle designs in a year, constantly tweaking to find the ‘right’ one? Would the cost collapse the company?

The culture of iteration

In addition to rethinking production, companies will need to embody a much more fluid corporate personality to succeed in a climate of constant iteration. I think the leader with a grand vision for the future will be consigned to the trash heap of history, replaced by people happy to roll out smaller ideas and evolve them without remorse for what they left behind.

The concept of product longevity will go away. Tweet This Quote

The hyperinnovative company will, I believe, bear a close affiliation to maker culture. Imagine a corporation building ‘rough models’ for friends to try out again and again, adding features here, taking features away there, crafting and tinkering tirelessly.

With all this, the concept of product longevity will go away. As Corkum said “When I launch a product, I’ll have six months to pump it before I have to start the tweaking process all over again.” And as no-longer-quite-new products begin to iterate furiously to hold consumer attention, there’s a real danger they’ll lose their sense of self and become bloated with new features to please perennially dissatisfied consumers. At which point, they’ll crash and be replaced by leaner, more focused products.

Brands may cease to be ‘shorthand’ for things consumers trust Tweet This Quote

Consumers (or co-creators, as I think they’ll increasingly become known) will welcome some of these shifts, but bemoan others. Products and services will be constantly tailored to their changing needs. But the brands themselves might possibly cease to become ‘shorthand’ for things consumers trust. Last week, you turned to deodorant X because it promised ultimate dryness. This week, it’s become the deodorant with more fruit scents. You’ll feel cut adrift, constantly looking for something you can hold onto.

Hyperfast fashion

I was curious if fashion, the ultimate seasonal business, was experiencing this shift to hyperinnovation. I spoke with Barbara Atkin, VP of Fashion Direction at Holt Renfrew (Canada’s most exclusive fashion retailer) while she was in Paris this March for Fashion Week.

Atkin confirmed that seasons were rapidly going away. “Just yesterday, somebody leaned over to me at a show and asked what season we’re in,” she quipped. “Consumers don’t care anymore about Fall or Spring—they want fur for summer, shorts in winter, everything whenever, and they want it now.”

Atkin summed it up nicely “Acquiring newness is what it’s all about. Everything we’re creating comes with obsolescence that’s measured in weeks, not months.”

Even the kids are confused

In addition to consulting, I teach marketing at a university. This semester, I brought aboard a complement of startup tech companies for whom my students would create marketing plans.

Even the students—average age 22—were perplexed at the fluidity the startups embodied.

The founders would arrive with products that seemed pointless one week, only to have completely new prototypes crafted seven days later. It was nearly impossible to get a bead on old-fashioned concepts like brand attributes, brand values and target market, not to mention nailing down revenue models. Putting together marketing plans was challenging, to put it mildly.

The stupid curve

An excerpt of my book dives into the effect this constant state of product—and by extension brand—flux is going to have on consumers:

As humans, we’re used to learning curves. You get a new device, bumble along as you figure out how to make the damn thing do what it’s supposed to, then start feeling smarter as you gain proficiency. Eventually, you reach the learning curve’s peak. You’re the king of the world and ready to take on another challenge.

But what if your device is rendered obsolete before you’re halfway along the learning curve, and you’re back to square one with the new version? Now multiply that by every device you own, every operating system you work with, and every app people say you simply can’t live without.

Suddenly one little learning curve becomes a tidal wave of curves that buries you. Too many improvements to absorb, too many updates to install, too many new ways to get the old job done. You’ve been sentenced to life as a newbie, feeling perennially stupid and incompetent. Worse still, you can’t stop the train and get off, for fear of being left behind in the Luddite dust.

You’re condemned to spending the rest of your life at the bottom of the stupid curve.

Whereto, brand strategy?

I believe consumers love newness as much as they loathe the stupid curve. It’s an uneasy relationship, but I don’t see it leading to anyone putting the brakes on.

In the chaos of hyperinnovation, anchor your brand on perennial qualities Tweet This Quote

Instead of plunging into frantic brand strategy iterations to keep up with product development, smart strategists will be looking for perennial qualities upon which to anchor their brands. The old adage, “The more things change, the more they stay the same” will take on a whole new meaning.

It’s not an unfamiliar concept. In turbulent times, people gravitate to safety and security. They need to trust. As the products they love change beyond recognition, they’ll want to know the company behind them has values as steadfast as a lighthouse in a storm.

Will your brand be stable in the storm, or capsize in the turbulence? Tweet This Quote

Therein lies the challenge—and the possible undoing—of many brands that are swept up in hyperinnovation.

Will you be able to keep your brand stable in the storm, or be capsized by the turbulence?

Editor’s note: If you have questions about building a futureproof brand, ask Marc in the comments section below. His answer will either run here or in his monthly newsletter. And check out his book for more on hyperinnovation.

About the author

Marc Stoiber

Marc Stoiber

As a brand strategy expert, successful entrepreneur, and award-winning author, Marc Stoiber uses simplicity and creativity to help people discover what’s awesome about their business…and then helps them tell the world. For more on creating your company’s value proposition, connect with Marc on Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn, and sign up for his monthly newsletter. Want to try building your own powerful brand to create unfair business advantage? Try out Marc’s DIY Brand Build Guide.

  • John Mulhern

    Our culture sees innovation as the best and most influential positive to problem solving. I think this article brings up a very interesting point about what the cost truly is of innovation. There truly must be a cost-benefit analysis with every innovation. I love the perspective on this issue taken in this article.

  • 204Ted

    I think there is pros and cons to hyper innovation. For one thing it can keep people on the cutting edge of new technology where it is needed. With the example of the Tesla cars it keeps them the most cutting edge and the cars performing at their best. More importantly, it doesn’t involve the “stupid curve” because it makes the car perform better without the human at the interface having to learn more. The con side of things really has to deal with the human factor. The harder it is for a person to figure out, the less likely the overall population is going to quickly adapt it.

  • Gaby Perez

    A few weeks ago I read the article “Ethical Fashion: Is tragedy in Bangladesh a final straw?”, which spoke of the concept of fast fashion. Similar to what Barbara Atkin was saying, we don’t value things as much as we used to. We want to products every day and the product from the day before becomes garbage. We must change the consumer perspective that buying on excessive is appropriate when its not. Its crazy how she said that people don’t want seasons anymore they want all the time fast fashion. Will this trend ever end?

  • sadeakindele

    I think this idea of hyperinnovation is reckless, and hope it will come to an end soon. Irrespective of the environmental perils it leads to, the need to constantly come up with something new can lower it’s quality for the mere sake of adding an unnecessary feature. While this is the direction businesses are currently moving towards, I think it needs to be revised because it is unsustainable.

  • csturk

    I agree! As I read this article, I was imagining us becoming somewhat like the people in Brave New World, brainwashed and always expecting some new and amazing product or update. This vision of course is unrealistic, but I think if the world and businesses move as fast as this article predicts, we will be doing our future generations a disfavor and only creating disappointment for ourselves. I would hope that we can always continually improve but not at a hyper rate. Life would be unfulfilling if we were always waiting for the next best thing.

  • kgallaher

    The idea of hyperinnovation is very interesting. I also liked the idea of the more things change the more they stay the same. Hyperinnovation can threaten brand strategy, and this should be eye opening to entrepreneurs.

  • Jack Strader

    I am totally on your side with this. This is a very enlightening article about something I’ve never even heard about and I think the points that you bring up are well stated and certainly present a variety of different liabilities in many different sectors of business and society.

  • karnold001

    I agree. In the fashion industry, the different seasons allow consumers to look forward to the different kinds of products that are sold at different times during the year. If we lose the seasons then we won’t value the products as much and then the only way to satisfy customers is to create something completely new. I think hyperinnovation is unnecessary in this society

  • dbickel

    I don’t think this is necessarily a bad thing. Hyper-innovation at first seems very explosive and appears to be attacking all industries. I for one, wouldn’t want my laundry detergent company switching their packaging every month to highlight a new feature. I wouldn’t be able to tell which brand is mine! I think that with this hyper-innovation happening in the sectors its supposed to (tech, fashion, ect.) is good but it will quickly become a thing of the past in other sectors. I think people are going to start looking for consistency again. The next best thing is always wanted but, it takes one step in the wrong direction to send your consumers head into chaos about the products the consume. The last thing you want to do is give consumer change when they are expecting the same. Hyper-innovation will be an interesting trend to follow.

  • mpierson19

    I agree with the laundry detergent constant change in packaging, I have had similar frustration towards the shampoo company I use, they constantly keep changing the packaging and it frustrates me because I have to search very hard to find my usual brand. This way with the hyper innovation, many people will start to be more aware of scanning the shelves of the products to make sure they are finding what they want.

  • dannyjoseph14

    I found this article very relatable. It seems that the second you begin to enjoy a product a new, better, sleeker version is available. I think hyperinnovation has a very interesting relationship with hyper consumption, it almost seems like one cannot survive without the other. I also found that this article made some important points about the affects of hyperinnovation on branding and brand loyalty.

  • Graeme

    Good article .. Rupert Murdoch of News Corp noted in the late 90s that the Internet was a great innovation, but it was going to put a lot of people out of work. This article reflects an extension of Murdoch’s prediction as Brands and Brand Generation venture into territory where constant and rapid disruption is the new norm; what was known and valued today can easily be gone tomorrow (think Myspace as one glaring social media example for which Murdoch paid $500 million and sold for $30 odd million just a few years later). This is going to play havoc with brand asset valuations.
    Also, the concept of Hyper-innovation puts a whole new spin on Malcom Gladwell’s discussion in his book “Tipping Point”. Hyper-innovation is in of itself both the “tipping point” to predominance for a brand, and also of its potentially rapid evolutionary collapse.
    Given the implied shorter life cycle expectancy of many existing and emerging brand assets through Hyper-innovation, then the implications for brand generating and marketing entities are also many.

  • zoeantonow

    I agree, and it worries me as a student to be entering this field in the future–who knows how fast innovation will be changing products by then? Increased consumption is scary on so many levels as well, where it leads to increased waste and therefore puts the environment in peril.

  • bdelbian

    I can recall several occurrences in which I had a spark for an idea that I thought would be a great start-up only to see something very similar spring up soon after. I love that this article used the term hyperinnovation, because that is exactly what is occurring. It seems somewhat daunting and impending for someone who want to start up their own business. How will I ever keep up is the question that runs constantly through my mind. I have learned to look at this more positively though. I have begun to focus my ideas on concepts that are centered around hyperinnovation. If I can develop an idea that is centered around this idea, then I believe that success becomes a much more real concept to me.

  • AFraley

    This is very interesting hyper-innovation may be on the rise but will it stay on the rise? In this day and age everything is changing every minute and it works great for now but I feel that this is just another up and coming innovation and it won’t be long before we see something else replacing it. I enjoyed the laundry detergent analogy however I feel that even though they are continually changing their packages they most always revert back to the original packaging for that comfort level and a reminder that they are in fact still the same company. I’m Interested in seeing how all of this plays out.

  • danphaw

    Some things deserve to be updated more frequently but consumers have gotten too used to having instant gratification. It reminds me of the story Lois C.K. relayed about getting on an airplane right after Wifi was made available and the guy sitting next to him complained that it wasn’t working immediately.

  • JuanFonseca1995

    Hyper-innovation was implemented so that companies can make even more money, even though they are making lots of money from the products they have already released. Longevity is fading away because the iPhone keeps bringing Apple billions in revenue annually, and there is really no significant difference between the iPhone 5 and the iPhone 6. The only difference between the two iPhones is the software and a few other minor changes. Many companies do this so that they trick consumers in buying more than they already have.

  • Marc Stoiber

    Again, I got into the discussion late! Many thanks for all the great comments! I would love to challenge you – perhaps this could be the subject of my next post – how the heck do we put a brake on all this? It seems that hyperinnovation is going to turn us into twitching, hyperstimulated tweakers who can’t think beyond the next shot of ‘new’. We’ll hate ourselves for it, but won’t know how to get off the wagon.

    I’d be reeeeeeeally curious if anyone out there has thoughts on how to turn the train around – or if we need to turn it around (perhaps a societal pendulum swing will do it for us?)

  • Katie

    I agree! Individuals today have gotten used to getting what they want, when they want. Consumers need instant gratification, and will buy products even when they don’t need it. Sometimes products are being changed and altered even when they don’t need to be. If products are changing this quickly today, I wonder what the future will hold.

  • danphaw

    I think you misunderstand Juan? He’s not talking about a yearly or bi-yearly update in hardware that takes time to produce. Companies would much rather follow that process. He’s talking about a consumer driven process of daily or weekly updates provided free of charge.

  • Matthew Montoya

    I definitely agree with your comment! My question is what does hyper innovation do to the quality of the products we produce. Also, could hyper-innovation be a good thing if it means constant improvement for the better? By for the better I mean, better environmental practices, materials etc. Could hyper-innovation stimulate poor practices to ‘fake’ the better product ideal! All interesting concepts!

  • Mabel

    I totally agree with you! The negative affects that hyper fashion has on the people that produce it, is something that consumers are never aware of. This article goes to the heart of the issue and illustrates the issues involved.

  • kschwein

    “Acquiring newness is what it’s all about. Everything we’re creating comes with obsolescence that’s measured in weeks, not months.” This quote sticks out to me because it sums up the article pretty well. I couldn’t agree more with the growth of hyper innovation comes the loss of product longevity. I personally am not a fan of hyper innovation because with it you end up buying basically the same product with one or two tweaks. Quality decreases and companies are just feeding you the same stuff over and over again.

  • Arnthor Kristinsson

    Very interesting article and I agree that things are starting to change so rapidly and innovation are improved almost every second. But I don’t think that it will kill brand strategy, I think it will change it. The brand strategy needs to adapt to the hyperinnovation and try to use it for advantage, even though right now it could be hard to imagine.

  • rschneider2800

    Shut down the Internet for a day??? Get rid of fast food and anything with instant gratification??? It is interesting to think about how to turn around the social norm of always wanting the newest update and anything new but at the same time I think it stems from our environment of constant inputs. I don’t know how to be away from my email for a few hours, let alone think about how long it might take to get a new update on SimsFreeplay.
    I wonder if the problem isn’t getting rid of hyperinnovation completely but supporting the businesses that can’t compete with it. This is something we have to do as small communities and as individuals; and we have to teach are kids the value of patience.
    Sorry this doesn’t anwser your question but it was interesting to think about.

  • Kevin C

    I partially disagree. I think Hyper innovation was being used in the 90’s in North America to combat the manufacturing jobs being lost oversees. I think as a Gen-X ‘er I was told there was no future in jobs or companies. Somehow that spawned a generation of Creatives. The challenge with creatives is that they constantly want to create. Not incrementally, not iteratively, but strive to be untethered from the shackles of corporate responsibility. A generalization of course. But I believe this to mostly be true. I wonder what the new company structure will look like. Large groups of creative based thinkers are a traditional management challenge. Hence new non-hierarchal structures like a holacracy. Enter a phase where small or individual creatives all innovate, means that kickstarter gets 80 different minimal wallet design companies instead of a Brand getting 20 different SKU’s to present to retail.

  • Marc Stoiber

    I LOVE your idea of making a big deal of being a ‘not constant update’ business. As a marketer, I think you could really play this up in communications. People want a place of familiarity and refuge. This would be very cool. Nice thinking.

  • Halea McAteer

    Interesting, I had only ever thought of this idea when it comes to the world of fast fashion. I can’t help but wonder how this idea of “hyperinnovation” adds to the problem of waste within the world today. I mean this in both the literal and figurative sense. If companies are going with one idea, then completely change direction the next day, how much actual product is being put to waste? And are these sort of temporary, ever-changing products/ideas creating a culture in which we no longer develop any sort of appreciation or connection to the goods we purchase and consume?

  • Marc Stoiber

    Hi Halea,
    Read some interesting stuff on fast fashion – the fallout is HUGE. Governments are getting together to figure out how to tax fast fashion companies like Zara for creating stuff that hits landfill a week after purchase. Apparently fast fashion is really swelling the landfill. Nasty stuff.

  • amandaclaire94

    Wow! I have been to Zara several times and never actually realized that this happens and I am actually really interesting in finding out more about this!

  • conner_faulkner

    I never thought that innovation would cause a negative affect. This is very interesting.

  • Wilson Mugabo

    This is a great idea. Thinking of taking idea of same kind back home in Africa

  • Bryan Parrish

    As I was reading your article and your post after, I was pondering about the increase in speed at which people will begin to expect new and exciting products, and the current limit we are getting closer too (the derivative of the graph ever climbing higher). If we look at Moore’s Law (technology doubles every two years) we can see that this is a possibility. But, since current technology is about to hit a plateau with processing capabilities (exact time frame I do not know) Moore’s Law is about to halt. As we reach the limit of how small our “device” processors can be created with current technology, growth in processing technology will slow to a crawl. At that time, it will be extremely tough to make anything new without some-kind of leap in techniques to build said processors. There are people working on it, but with our current knowledge of physics, it is either extremely expensive and not going to become cheap anytime soon, or seems to be imposable.

    The plateau event will likely have a disastrous effect how consumers see the market and will likely get bored. In the age of instant information and gratification, unless there is something new all the time, most will get bored and look for something new but it just might not be there. After some thought, I think this is the only time when people might begin to slow down a bit – but only a bit. I use the processing market as an example. That is only one market in the near seemingly infinite markets but I think it illustrates my point.

    However, there are many venues for constant growth still available outside those venues with a cap; such as fashion as you stated above. Unless the markets can correlate the slow down in production in the other markets, the opposite effect might occur for those markets without that theoretical cap. As one slows down, the others with accelerate at a faster and faster speed – or rather, the desire for “newness” will be accelerating to make up for the lack in other markets.

    As for turning the train around, I believe it is imposable with our current culture. With computers, the internet, and all kinds of video games, the newer generations are able to get whatever they want at almost the blink of an eye. I remember a time if you wanted something, you had to mail a check and wait 6 to 8 weeks for delivery. Now you can go to Amazon and get same day shipping. The culture is now so fast, and innovative, that if you want to turn the train around, or start that pendulum going the other direction, there will need to be a huge event that forces it to occur. I refuse to even begin to speculate what that event might be……

  • ChaiseSheldon

    I’ve seen this switch to hyperinnovation coming for awhile even though I had no idea what to call it. I play all sorts of video games and as the technology has improved it seems every time I go to play a game after a few days I have to download some new update for it that fixes problems that most had no idea existed. Then a few days later they have to fix problems created by that update. While I think it could be a good thing I miss just picking things up and enjoying them until the new options came out.

  • mleano

    Regarding Tesla, while an innovative company with its innovative Model S, I do not believe it will kill brand strategy. It seems much easier for tech to come and go (ie Friendster>MySpace>Facebook. Motorola>Nokia>Blackberry>Apple), but in auto there is still something to be said for brand equity and product enthusiasts. Porche’s 911 has been in production since 1963 and still has a passionate following. The company itself has not lost its ability to innovate either. They still learn a lot from racing development and their new Porsche 918 combines their tried and true engineering with the addition of new technology such as electric motors to complement the performance of the 918. Innovation is great, and I love the newest and coolest products like everyone else, but brand equity, brand strategy, and innovation can create brand loyalty.

  • When it comes to successfully iterating and innovating, @disqus_Wa5SlhFwVi:disqus makes a brilliant point in this interview about how wildly successful innovations tend to be only slightly different from past failures. One of my favorite interviews of all-time, watch his snippet on failure here: http://unreasonable.is/fireside-chat-with-google-x-rapid-prototyping-genius/#video-2

  • kbell003

    I think that this is a very true article. We look more for something that we are told is new rather than we is actually better. An example of this to me is with iPhone. Apple felt that they were so strapped to make something new so they made the iPhone color. This really was not an improvement on any software or the phone, rather just a fancy new packaging. Society has created this ideal that we always need something new, rather that we need something that is better than what we had before.

  • KE7JLM

    Awesome reference, C.K. definitely has a unique look on life. Comedians don’t have to follow the rules of other public figures allowing them to say what others won’t. I admire them.

  • danphaw

    Hey, I want some of those wallets!

  • kmwilliams52

    I honestly do not see this as being something that we can simply just turn around. My reason behind it is, we as humans, once we have tasted something, we just want more and more of it. For example, communication in person used to be something we did all the time. Now, we are moving more and more away from that due to inventions of the cell phone, the internet, and even social media. We are a lot less dependent on face to face meetings than we used to be due to these inventions.

    Due to this, and now everyone wanting things NOW, it is really hard for me to see this being able to be derailed. I do not even know if it is really a bad thing, or even something we need to stop. In my mind this fuels people to be constantly innovating and thinking of bigger and better things which we can only benefit from. I am interested to see where things are a year, or even five years from now.

  • Thomas Tessier

    I agree with you John. Cost-benefit analysis should be implemented in a lot of innovations. Great Article!

  • spitfireneil

    “The concept of product longevity will go away.”

    This is basically what i’m learning in my Understanding the Enterprise class. The company’s of the past operate fully on a “Red Ocean” mindset. “In red oceans, industry boundaries are clearly delineated and accepted, and the competitive rules of the game are known. Companies try to outperform their rivals to grab a greater share of existing demand, usually through marginal changes in offering level and price. As the market space gets crowded, prospects for profits and growth are reduced. Products become commodities, and cut-throat competition turns the red ocean bloody. (blueoceanstrategy.com)”

    As compared to Blue Oceans which are mush more fluid “in contrast, are defined by untapped market space, demand creation, and the opportunity for highly profitable growth. Most are created from within red oceans by expanding industry boundaries. In blue oceans, competition is irrelevant. Yes, imitators arise, but experience shows there is a wide window of opportunity to stay ahead of imitators.-“(blueoceanstrategyaustralia.com)

    This is the wave that most Red Ocean companies are not catching for whatever reason. Its a system that is doomed to fail and up and coming entrepreneurs need to avoid getting caught in that current. In stead we should think like Apple for example, a seemingly Red Ocean tech giant that unassumingly uses Blue Ocean thought and tactics. Thus, keeping them relevant in the market and safe on the wave.

  • Thomas Miller

    I really like the point made about the ‘stupid curve’. Everyone has all of this technology that is constantly being updated with new and more stuff, and eventually it will be too much to be able to know how to use efficiently. With technology continuously being updated and made newer and newer, people won’t be satisfied with what they have now and will always be looking for that new item which they will have to learn how to use correctly; and that cycle will seemingly continue as long as technology keeps progressing.

  • Thomas Miller

    Louis C.K. makes great points about instant gratification and technology with phones too, and how not too long ago people used to have just one phone in their house that the whole family used. Not everybody had a cell phone that they could use to just send text messages or call someone whenever they wanted from wherever they wanted. And now so many people are used to a message being delivered immediately or their phone internet working perfectly that they complain when their phones webpage doesn’t pop up instantly. It’s crazy how used to technological progression we have become that anything that works just a little bit too slow for us is absolutely frustrating to deal with

  • wegener61

    Something I haven’t really thought, but hyper innovation is definitely a thing. You see it with electronics especially. The author makes a good point, will traditional car companies become obsolete or have to adapt to this new sensation, or can they survive with a yearly release?

  • Alex Marski

    Electronics came to my mind as well as I read this article. I think that traditional car companies will have to adapt to this new sensation sooner or later.

  • joconne4

    I see where your comment is coming from, technology and media are the big things right now. I would like to think of things more as just a kind of change and not a downward trend. The amount of technological change in the last 100 years has been so much faster than ever before, which I would argue was kicked off because of the World Wars. People will find a way to keep improving in that sense. I would see that more as a quality improvement thing, especially in things like how you mentioned Amazon same day shipping. Say what you want, but the world is much better for having outpaced the Pony Express.

    With how people are worrying about the way people look at media, using the word ‘instant gratification’ as a dirty word, I see it a bit differently. Not too long ago now, especially before the internet, we had a few local outlets of media and goods, and then a small handful of national establishments. I would say it is still the same, but that range has gotten massive. Now anyone can make or do anything for anyone. Everyone can find things they like and communities they identify with.

    Absolutely anyone with the will and knowhow has the ability to produce something for others, and a ton of people do that. These last 10-15 years of technology have enabled individuals to reach out to as few or as much of an audience as they want, and big companies can reach out to other countries down to individuals easier than ever. I make Youtube videos for friends, Mountain Dew has been seen reaching out to someone contemplating suicide.

    In short, anyone can pay attention to whatever they want out there, and participate as much as they want in those things. There are more possibilities than ever, and people will get used to that.

  • Why do you think this Thomas?! Thanks for sharing your opinions with us!

  • mrschatham

    I’d like to know what happened to the original process of design where the goal was not to just have the consumer accept something new, but to have their object admired and even have an emotional connection causing them to keep it for a long time due to their personal experience. We have become a society that demands innovation. There are millions of things that already exist yet we want to see things improved with new colors or textures for example. It boils down to human behavior: some love the new, some fear the new. The constant changes are accepted by some while others lag behind.

    How do we turn the train around? The only way I see is to address this insatiable consumption of today. It would be nearly impossible to change the way things are without a change in society in general. I would guess companies would have to come to some sort of understanding that it’s time to streamline and condense the mass market of products out there and narrow the options, but what fun would that be!? There could be some definite slowing down and I guarantee no one would be missing out. I, personally, do not like the way society can be driven by the new and improved everything, but I am also guilty of appreciating things that make my life easier or improving efficiency.

    It’s an interesting thought for sure! (Sorry for the last post, I’m new to Unreasonable.is)

  • Melanie Olma

    Just reading the word hyperinnovation triggers a stress response in me, and yes, I am part of the stupid curve, but everything has a tipping point, and there is no point in trying to fight the powers that push to maintain a balance. Because of things like hyperinnovation, we are starting to see a rise in the ‘slow movement’ – providing new business opportunities to those thinking ahead. I think the train is turning around, slowly.

  • Jonathan

    As a student studying marketing, I believe that the brand is a huge element in any corporation. Saying that, I do not think that hyper-innovation will kill brand strategy. Many companies may need to focus on their product line and operational efficiency but maintaining their brand image should be the first priority.

  • Will Ettl

    Everyone will have to adapt after a while. It is just the law of evolution you will have to adapt to survive and not focus on your old fashion ways. The only way to survive in a world that revolves around technology is going to be to adapt. People need to realize this other wise you will not survive.

  • Ryan Dow

    When this comes up it comes and goes fast. And isn’t really something I continue thinking about after it goes away.