You losers need to stop saying ‘disruption’
Disruption isn’t just a word, it’s also a theory. A very complex theory. And businesses must meet several conditions before being labelled 'disruptive', says Nick Taras.
It’s sickening. You all keep trying to disrupt each other. Nobody can focus on themselves anymore – you just want to disrupt something, somehow.
Every market is apparently being disrupted and it’s hard to tell who’s disrupting who.
The race is on:
And I don’t think it is actual disruption you’re after. I think you just like the word.
You people weasel-ed this vile, phony, disease of a buzzword everywhere.
You hosted conferences on disruption; You wrote books on disruption:
You filmed documentaries on it:
You even put it in your job titles:
Decline.
The word has become so disruptive it has somehow become prone to disruption itself:
Since I started working in marketing, ‘disruption’ has grown more irritating and irrelevant each day. And if you also work in marketing – or for a start-up – you’ve heard all about disruption.
You’ve no doubt seen a Keynote put together by a high-fiving strategist saying, “Our vision: to be the Uber of Tupperware.”
But ‘disruption’ was a negative word growing up. In my school, if a teacher described a student as ‘disruptive’, it meant he was drawing dismembered male genitalia on other students’ homework. A ‘disruptive innovator’ would’ve been a student who drew testicles in a revolutionary way – perhaps using someone’s graphics calculator.
So who disrupted this definition?
It turns out the word is attributed to a certain disruptive innovator. In 1995, Clayton Christensen – a Harvard Business School professor and the Anti-Christ – wrote an article called Disruptive Technologies: Catching the Wave. Much like the guy who created Skynet in Terminator 2, Christensen had no idea that his invention would destroy the world as we know it.
In his Satanic bible, The Innovator’s Dilemma, Christensen argued that companies fail because they underestimate their least threatening competitors. CEOs focus on tailoring expensive products for high-end customers. Start-ups can then develop cheaper products to appeal to low-end customers – and ultimately take over with their simpler, cheaper offering.
Wikipedia disrupted Encyclopedia Britannica. Digital downloads disrupted CDs.
I just couldn’t believe that my daily frustration could be traced back to one person. I had to give CC a piece of my mind. Unfortunately for him, he has a Twitter account.
There was no reply, possibly because Christensen is away on a pagan goat-sacrificing ceremony.
So I dug deeper. Max Nisen, a Business Insider writer and fellow crusader against disruption, says, “The result of Silicon Valley’s fascination with the term, as well intentioned as it might be, was to render the word useless. Every time a company creates something new, beats another one out, or applies data or software to a new industry, it has instantly ‘disrupted.’”
As Max points out, the golden child of disruption, Uber, didn’t really disrupt anything. It’s more convenient and an improvement on the taxi system, but just because a new start-up is offering a product or service that’s better or cheaper doesn’t mean it’s disruptive.
A disruptive innovation lets those at the bottom of a market access a product or service that has usually only been available to people with heaps of cash or skills. PCs replacing mainframe computers. Online courses pushing into higher education.
So ‘disruption’ isn’t just a word – it’s actually a theory. A very complex theory. Businesses must meet several conditions before being labelled “disruptive”.
So maybe it’s not Christensen’s fault at all – the real demons are marketers who bandy the word around willy-nilly. Maybe I was a little harsh on old mate Clayton. In fact, in a Harvard Business Review article last year, he agreed with me, writing, “the theory’s core concepts have been widely misunderstood and its basic tenets frequently misapplied.”
If you want to use ‘disruption’, fine, but try understand it first. That Harvard Business Review piece is a good start.
Otherwise you could end up looking more like an idiot than The Rock
Nick Taras is a senior content writer and strategist at DT
I’d love to see you go after the word “content,” the same way you go after the word “disruption.” 😉
User ID not verified.
The word ‘the’ is used a lot and people don’t have an issue with it.
Same as the words ‘shoe’, ‘exercise’, ‘strategy’, and ‘order’.
Just because a word becomes popular is no reason to mock or belittle it. ‘Disruption’ is a clearly understood phenomenon and one worth exploring. Just because the word is popular does not mean we should stop applying the trained mind to how we can disrupt better.
Please ignore this article.
User ID not verified.
….disruptive
User ID not verified.
Couldn’t agree more. You know what was truly “disruptive”? Medicare – yep, universal health care for all regardless of income THAT was truly disruptive and revolutionary in its day.
The wheel was pretty disruptive when it was invented. As was the washing machine and the combustion engine. Economies have changed throughout human history – business models have come and gone. Such is the cycle of capitalism but yet our industry convinces itself that we are living through the most “disruptive” era in history.
User ID not verified.
The volume of clients that (at briefing stage) request a ‘disruptive’ campaign genuinely surprises me. There’s nothing disruptive about drinking tea, a new brand of toothpaste or product flavour.
The simple fact is, disruptive is the new ‘viral’. Clients are requesting campaigns that fit a buzzword, whether or not they meet objectives and make an impact to the brand or not.
Like with anything, the people that are most disruptive and are truly changing the game and subverting an industry would never define themselves as such, or make poor attempts to be disruptive.
User ID not verified.
Spot on Shaun.
Fire.
Agriculture.
Housing.
Magna Carta.
Printing Press.
Electricity.
Sanitation.
Postage.
Lighting.
Train, car and aeroplane.
Radio, TV.
Computing, internet.
Oh, and fixies, beards and thick-rimmed glasses.
User ID not verified.
The idea of “Disruption”, applied to marketing and advertising, was developed by Jean Marie Dru of BDDP Paris in 1991. It was presented to the BDDP global network in early 1992. Dru went on to publish several books on the subject.
At the time BBDP stated “Disruption is not a pretty word. But it clearly states what we want to do for our clients: destabilize the conventions of their competitive environments”.
At the time the term “discontinuity” was considered as an alternative, as in the geological term Mohorovičić discontinuity.
I hope that this gets the Harvard guy off the hook.
JV
User ID not verified.
Spot on! It’s additionally funny that agencies talk so much about disruption. They talk to clients about disruption while obscuring the fact that no agency has ever disrupted anything in the history of the world (except for people’s lives). It’s tech companies that disrupt thing, not agencies. And it never will be.
User ID not verified.
Except, no. Either you haven’t understood the argument here or you don’t fully understand what content strategists do.
In any case, agencies shouldn’t even be talking about disruption. Agencies don’t disrupt — they service clients.
User ID not verified.
What Christensen first identified he called Disruptive Technology; it was Andy Grove that embellished the terminology on Christensen’s behalf.
And there is a single sentence in one of the best and oldest articles ever written on the topic (http://www.newyorker.com/magaz.....iants-fail) that explains why he named it Disruptive Technology.
That sentence is: “Christensen called these low-end products “disruptive technologies,” because, rather than sustaining technological progress toward better performance, they disrupted it.”
That’s really all you need to know. Develop something that becomes so wildly popular that it sends everything else to the back row FOREVER and you’ve got Disruptive Innovation.
PS For those that would like to explore further, we discuss the matter at length (sometimes) and in detail (also sometimes) at the group in LinkedIn called (what else?) “Disruptive Innovation”.
Maybe see you there.
https://www.linkedin.com/groups/1837479
User ID not verified.
Disruption is just a word, used to replace older words such as breakthrough.
It ‘s not an idea or concept or process.
User ID not verified.
Ad industry navel-gazing at its absolute peak. Maybe you could debate this in person over a Fairtrade pale ale at the Cricketers?
Meanwhile, the grown ups can continue to sell stuff, rather than debating semantics.
User ID not verified.
Can I offer couple more additional buzzword to tear them apart:
– storytelling;
– engagement
User ID not verified.
Experience
User ID not verified.