The Musings of Metis

Upon the Shoulders of Giants

The time comes in every organisation where the leader needs to step down and pass the reins to another. In Apple Inc. this event could not have had greater focus with the world’s business press headlining on the resignation of Steve Jobs as CEO.

What the event has highlighted is the importance of a company to ensure its brand and reputation are not tied up with one individual but have anthropomorphic characteristics with the company appearing as a “living, breathing thing”. The jury may be out on Apple, with the sudden drop in share value followed by a bounce back recovery. Was the recovery as a result of confidence in Tim Cook, Jobs’ successor or was it as a result of share acquisition during the dip? What is noticeable is the increase in shareprice of Apple’s competitors. Is this the time for them to gain valuable ground?

At Metis we insist organisations look at the association between the personal brand of their key people and the company’s own brand, between the individual’s know-how and how this impacts on the company’s reputation. By identifying exactly where the balance exists and identifying what drives real competitive advantage, we can help the organisation plan for continuity during transition and develop knowledge transfer to support the succession of future leaders.

Are your key people single points of contact? Will your brand competitiveness be impacted if they move on? Have you sufficient know-how transfer policies in place to mitigate the risk? What actions have you taken to ensure successful succession? What will the market make of it and what might be the impact on customers or revenues? Interested to know.

Electrical giant Dixons calls on Metis Partners to market two of its best-known brands

Glasgow-based intellectual property (IP) asset specialist Metis Partners has been appointed by Dixons Retail plc (Dixons) to market and sell the IP assets, of two of the multinational electrical giant’s best-known and longest-established brands, Saisho and Miranda.

The sale is a coup for Metis Partners, and enhances its reputation as the destination of choice for organisations seeking to generate a return on IP assets such as brands which may have benefitted from significant investment in the past but are no longer critical to future strategy. By using Metis Partners, they can generate a significant return on these assets that would be otherwise written off.

Dixons, which spans 28 countries and employs more than 40,000 people, called on Glasgow-based Metis Partners to find buyers for its Saisho own-brand product line, including audio, TV and video products, and Miranda, the internationally recognised camera and photographic equipment brand.

The Saisho brand has created nearly £27 million in sales since it was first introduced by Dixons in 1982 as a technology range which over the past few decades has become a household name. Assets for sale include goodwill in the brand and reputation in addition to 16 trade marks providing international protection.

The Miranda brand, originally created by a Japanese company more than 50 years ago, was acquired by Dixons in 1981 and was used on SLR cameras, compact cameras, lenses and other photographic equipment. It has generated more than £29 million for Dixons across its product range. Assets in the sale include goodwill in the Miranda brand and reputation as well as 20 international trade marks.

Stephen Robertson, CEO of Metis Partners, said: “These are significant brand names which have served Dixons well over the years. They have benefited from enormous advertising and media exposure within the retailer’s campaigns and we expect there to be keen interest given the outstanding levels of consumer recognition attached to them. "We believe Saisho and Miranda will be of interest to companies suffering the brand provenance gap (lack of recognition and heritage) where companies are selling high quality tech products / services but are unable to charge a premium for them. This is often because they are not being sold under a recognisable brand - companies in this situation could buy Miranda or Saisho and “hop” onto the brand recognition and brand recall that already exists in the market for these brands.”

All offers and / or notes of interest should be directed to Nat Baldwin at Metis Partners by 4.00pm on Thursday, 26th May, 2011.

For further information, please contact Nat Baldwin at Metis Partners, Trinity House, 33 Lynedoch Street, Glasgow, G3 6AA. Tel: 0141 353 3011.

Coffee to Go?

In an interesting article in a recent Financial Times, two opposite perspectives on licensing were demonstrated.

The article related to Oracle’s patent and copyright infringement claim against Google for the inclusion of elements of the Java software (now owned by Oracle after its purchase of Sun Microsystems earlier this year) within the Google Android smartphone operating system.

It appears Java has become the victim of a sea change in licensing strategy surrounding its use. When owned by Sun, Java was “promoted” as the enabler for internet applications, a tool set where developers could rapidly build solutions for an ever widening, cross platform user base. As a consequence, it is unlikely for you not to have Java somewhere on your systems if you use a PC, mobile phone or netbook. “Freely” licensed use of Java established its position as the tool of preference and core to internet business and in return Sun gained kudos.

Now, under the ownership of Oracle, Java has become embroiled in the battle for smart phone supremacy. With sales of Android-based smartphones overtaking Apple’s iPhone in the last quarter, and the inclusion of Java code in the operating system. The FT article suggests Oracle see a threat to their existing Java licence revenues whereby it would lose the power to “charge a royalty on new handsets”. As a consequence, the Java strategy has moved from collaborative to protective, with multiple copyright and patent infringement claims being raised in San Francisco.

While the outcome is yet unknown, there remains a risk that Google, if forced to pay for the use of Java, could start to charge for Android, challenging Google’s Android business model and new handset providers may look for cheaper alternatives or open up the opportunity for Apple to regain the initiative or another player (Microsoft?) to enter the arena.

As the article states: “at the time it bought Sun, Oracle executives said they would tread carefully in how they exercised their Java rights, since a heavy-handed approach could undermine the software’s standing as a de facto industry standard”, but has the temptation of new revenues as a result of the growth of mobile apps been too great?

The bottom line is this: when you establish a patent portfolio, you must seriously consider how you intend to utilise it. Do you intend to actively pursue each infringement or do you view a collaborative approach to be more attractive, sharing profit through a well thought out licencing strategy?

Is Java now both a headache as well as an opportunity?

If Apple do it, why can't you?

With all the press that Apple has received recently with the iPad and last week the new iPhone 4, it was interesting to read the review of the new iPhone's features by Kyle Baxter of Tightwind.net.

In it, Baxter highlights the new hi-res screen, the camera and – as ever – the overall design. But technology aside, his most significant comment is not the adding of more features but:

“they [Apple] aren’t attempting to compete with Android phones feature-by-feature. Instead, they are trying to continually redefine exactly what a smartphone is, and thus force their competitors to compete on Apple’s terms. They’re trying to make everyone else respond to them, rather than the other way around.”

Metis Partners always stress the importance of “competing on your own terms” as a key strategic objective and by identifying and exploiting your companies intangible assets - brand and reputation, market intelligence, know-how, IP and culture being among the ten areas Metis consider - you can immediately take the upper hand and make competitors respond to you, rather than you to them.

So if Apple with its wealth and position of strength does it, why aren’t you? What hidden assets do you have that can be used as a “weapon” to compete? Where do you have the pistol to beat your competitors bow and arrow?