Why Clorox Ticks Me Off: Another Bad Lesson On Open Innovation
It has only been a few days since I lashed out on an open innovation initiative at Campbell Soup. This time Clorox ticked me off enough to write a similar post. Why? They wasted my time.
I explained in another post, Five Lessons On Twitter, LinkedIn and Innovation that Twitter is a great tool for research on open innovation. So when a tweet like this one pops up in my filters, I got a bit excited:
“Clorox just re-launched its Open Innovation site. Come check it out http://bit.ly/1IlIJG and be a part of the development process! CloroxTweets”
Interesting! They even ask me to join their development process. Why not check it out? The link is: The Open Innovation Virtual Network
The first show-stopper was the request to sign up for their initiative and create a profile. I always frown when I am asked to fill out yet another profile and I almost quit here. I really look forward to the day when LinkedIn opens up their profiles to initiatives like this : – )
The next show-stopper was the site itself. This is beta-testing at a very early stage. Not really what I expected from a re-launched site from a company such as Clorox. I am definitely no expert on setting up a beta test, but I can always chip in with what I experienced going through their site.
• The user experience is very confusing. What does Clorox want to achieve? What is in it for me?
• There are inactive or restricted areas. Why do I even get to see this?
• There is no activity. Why do you open up for the public without having anything to show?
This experience made me wonder whether they have made any progress since their initial launch. Is this really a re-launch? This is also where I felt they wasted my time by presenting such an un-finished project.
Does Clorox really think people will come back after having had such an experience?
Tips on getting a community to work
Greg Piche, the project manager at Clorox, wrote this on the site; “This group reminds me of a junior high dance..everything’s in place but the dance floor is still empty, even after the DJ spun Styx. ; )”
Getting a community up and running is really hard work and even when you do things right it might not even take off. I have learnt this working with network groups for many years and most recently with my Leadership+Innovation group on LinkedIn. I have just decided to open the group for everyone after a failed experiment to activate corporate practitioners and keep out academics and consultants.
Some of my tips on making a community work include:
• Focus on the need of your members before your intended outcome. Of course, your efforts have to pay off, but this will not happen unless you provide incentives for spending time in your community.
• Focus on quality rather than quantity; getting the right people who can contribute as well as gain from your initiative on board is more important than getting many people onboard.
• Mix virtual tools with real life meetings. We can do much with virtual tools, but nothing beats face-to-face interactions.
• Start with a core group that creates early quality activity in the community and let them act as ambassadors.
• You need a dedicated facilitator to make things happen.
Open innovation requires open communication
One reflection that I made during the visit to the Clorox website is that communication is really important on such initiatives. Clorox failed on this. They could have done a much better job on explaining the purpose of this initiative and how this is relevant to others.
Jennifer Ernst from PARC has just written a great post on why open communication is important for open innovation. Check this post: Opening Communication For Open Innovation – Should You Share Your Strategy?
Greg Piche and the other innovation guys at Clorox have a tough job ahead of them, but honestly; they are not making it easier for themselves. What do you think?
By the way: It would be great to write about a company that does really well with such initiatives. Leave a comment if you know of an interesting case besides Dell IdeaStorm and MyStarbucksIdea as these are quite known by now. : – )
Open Innovation (the Buzz not the practice) is a bit hollow, don't you think? What does it propose to do? OK, I understand that getting more people involved in the discussion helps you in the generation of shared opportunity, but to what ends….
I am really looking to find those that can execute all these great ideas and concepts that come along. There is so much great stuff out there sitting in dusty corners of global corporate hq's just waiting for the right launch vehicle. And just giving people (corporations and consumers) more access to "open" just isn't going to get anywhere….
Thanks for the great piece. Enjoyed the perspectives.
Hi Stefan. Congratulations on another great post about firms that are trying and not quite succeeding at these external communities. If it is of interest to you or your readers, I gave a presentation recently on factors for success and failure for external innovation communities. You can see it at SlideShare: http://www.slideshare.net/jdpuva/innovation-and-c….
For the most part I agree with the issues you raise, but I think many firms don't carefully think through the goals of the communities and fail to communicate them to the audience.
Hi Stefan,
This is a great post and really helpful to us here. We're finding that Open Innovation sites are quite challenging to start and to maintain. They've got to be engaging, functional, interactive and, of course innovative. It's tough and we're learning our way into it. And we're grateful for the well thought out criticism of our site because we're committed to this and we want to make it better for the user. Look for your suggested improvements coming soon.
Hi Stefan,
Thanks for another compelling post. While I agree with your points on attempting to create an Open innovation climate online without understanding the challenges first, I also think putting 'straw men' out there for people such as yourself to comment on and poke holes in actually helps the process work. It is from those who speak up that these sites can be improved. OI is still in its infant stages and, as you pointed out, there are too few companies that can claim success via OI. Interestingly enough, the two examples you gave are from companies who have embraced change as a means of doing business. Those companies who are starting their OI mission with a website but have not embraced the change aspect of OI will, by definition, not be successful.
Greg, it is the culture of the organization that requires adjustment for a true OI initiative to work. In my work bringing OI Programs to B to C organizations I have found C-Level support only for those programs that show 'early wins'. While I agree that showing success early will serve as a springboard to more in-depth OI activities, I also believe the definition of success must be adjusted. Bottom-line revenue from OI is not the metric to use as a starting point. We use a five-tiered approach that shows value to the organization at every level, whether it be increased accessibility to IP or co-developed products with outside interests to even co-developing products with the competition!
There is much to be learned from OI initiatives. A web presence is but one small piece. The metrics to determine success of the web portal must be defined well in advance of launch, or you may find yourself the topic of blog strings like this, rather than the subject of blog strings discussing how well the program is going.
Cheers,
Kurt C Schneider
Stefan – You have started another valuable dialog – thank you!
I see that there is a global need for Open Innovation and a need for the practice to develop norms for how we treat each other and how we can mutually benefit.
I feel that in trying to be a good citizen of multiple innovation ecosystems, I dedicate a significant part of my time reading your posts as well as numerous other groups. The Clorox ecosystem adds another interesting community to this list. I feel that human nature has imbued us with certain desires to both define our territory and be recognized. This leads to multiple people all creating their own ecosytems in which their contribution has a greater chance of being recognized within its boundaries. Thus, we end up with an abundance of smaller and smaller territories competing for attention. I look forward to the launch of a synthesizing service to help us manage our many networks.
And to Greg – the Clorox site is a compelling design and space. I look forward to seeing it grow. To help you understand my initial 'dream' of the site and why I signed up… I see its value in being a direct connection to the Clorox company, with its years of experience in understanding chemistry, consumer behavior, manufacturing, sourcing, packaging, merchandising, etc, etc. There is a hope for having a 'friend in the business' because you have opened your doors for a relationship. I also like the idea of being able to contribute to worthwhile topics. This approach is a bit more personable than 'challenge based' sites which isolate you from the company by having the site be an intermediary.
Thank you for enabling a direct conversation – it is bold and I hope it grows.
Stefan,
I agree with Kurt's comment that companies who are experiencing early success with OI environments tend to have adopted change as a fundamental platform for sustainable growth. The organizations I have worked with that are evolving toward open innovation have integrated the organizational design and change management groups deeply into planning and execution. Although it is a challenge initially, it accelerates the evolution.
Even though traditional OD and CM processes have some value in supporting this journey; there is significant benefit in looking at less traditional OD and CM practices. This is one area that I'd be interested in hearing perspectives on.
Nice post indeed. One of the key-issues of both the Campbell and Clorox sites is undoubtfully that they do not get across why we should be contributing. It think Stefan is right to see this as typical of huge corporations. Here are some of the perception problems I have met with when talking about OI with people in big corporations:
1. "Why pay if people work for free?" Many see Open Innovation mainly as a cheap way to get new ideas in (or that they at least have to communicate initiatives like this internally). As they don't always see the less prosaic values of OI, many of the catchphrases they don't sound authentic.
2. "Our soap is sexy" People within a corporation misjudge the appeal of their brand and don't put enough effort in making it more appealing to outsiders.
One of the reasons why LEGO's Mindstorms is a big success (http://mindstorms.lego.com/eng/Israel_dest/default.aspx) while some other companies can't get off the ground is that people actually engage with toys on a more emotional level than with soap. Working on a new toy can be perceived as playing on a higher level. And playing is a rewarding experience. If people can't feel they play solving your problems and there is no clear perspective for peer-recognition, you should pay. And that's probably why P&G uses Innocentive and NineSigma, where they can offer monetary awards. On hypios.com, we try to build a framework where peer recognition in the social network and payment for good solutions will both be around.
3. They don't really know what they want from OI. That's what Stefan notes about the Campbell initiative. Saying "Give us some good ideas" is not a good idea. You can make a open request about something specific.
4. Corporate blindness: Without an outer eye, people from corporations are clumsy with formulating what they want clearly enough so someone from without can offer useful feedback. At hypios we try to figure out what are key elements of good problem formalization by testing with our own problems, before opening up the platform to other Seekers.
We'll know soon if our program of opening up corporate problem-solving works. Solutions to the problems we've posted are due in september. http://blog.hypios.com/category/hypios-news/
Sorry for being so long…
Who could develop an ethical perspective on the Clorox-like OI efforts?
On the surface those initiatives strike me as cynical, self-centric, and delusional.
I can't wait to see talented, educated and creative people getting truly excited by an S&P500 brand (for example Clorox), logging it the website, and producing ideas for the higher benefit of those common-good-minded corporations.
???