I am honored that a comment I posted online near the start of this year was published in the ”Interaction” section of Harvard Business Review’s May-June 2017 print edition. The “Interaction” section in Harvard Business Review’s print edition showcases a limited number of comments selected from those posted online on Harvard Business Review articles.
What I commented on was part of Harvard Business Review’s “Spotlight” section in its January-February 2017 issue. The section’s primary article is “Customer Loyalty is Overrated” and that’s where all of the comments for the section, including those on the section’s additional shorter articles, are posted. My comment was on one of the shorter articles in the section, an article titled “The Science: How Habit Beats Novelty” by Scott Berinato, a senior editor at Harvard Business Review. That article is subtitled “Marketers spend time and money trying to make products stand out so that they’ll be chosen. But, what if novelty is having the opposite effect?” The article explains that too much novelty can backfire.
My comment agreed with the article’s position that too much novelty has a downside. After all, I am someone who often writes and blogs about the dangers of excess change as applied to various different strategic choice situations.
In addition to saying that too much novelty can easily cause damage, my comment pointed out that novelty is not the only way to stand out. My comment clarified that the Harvard article really covered two separate concepts–one being novelty and the other being standing out–and that, since these two are not the same, they should not be confused.
Once again, just as I did in an earlier blog post, I encourage my readers to take a look at the January-February 2017 Harvard Business Review Spotlight section.
