SuperCell, ever hear of Coca Cola?

[lordgc]

Look at blackberry for instance. Blackberry was dominating the smartphone market in the early 2000s. However, when the Iphone came out, Blackberry refused to adapt their brand and follow suit. They chose to keep their "keyboard" in lieu of the larger screen with a touch screen keyboard.

Just my 2 cents - I along with a few of my friends still use blackberry because it has the hard keys instead of the touch.
And the email security from Blackberry is still better than the competitors.

[Smolson]

Just my 2 cents - I along with a few of my friends still use blackberry because it has the hard keys instead of the touch.
And the email security from Blackberry is still better than the competitors.

But you get my point? Went from front runner in the market to a complete niche item almost completely due to their unwillingness to change.

[Naturalmystic]

The reason they survived is because they dumped the "new coke" and went back to the original. That's why they still make soft drinks.

coca-cola offered "new coke" and "coca-cola classic". the consumer decided with their dollars. supercell offers one vision of the game depending on if you chose the optional update. you whiners get to vote with your dollars. now if supercell begins to suffer financially they will have decisions to make. all the bluster and hysteria on this forum is meaningless to supercell until they feel it in the pocket book. so step up whiners, the world of social media is at your fingertips, do your best to shake supercell's tree. bring it or get lost and find another game. I think in a month you whiners will have run out of tears and the forum will return to normal.

[Daviid]

Its not the same think. Cola & game company. Stop with those posts..

[Sticksman]

I get it. I have a degree in business and working on my masters. Not all business models apply to one another. We get the analogy but it doesn't apply as neatly as many seem to think.

Yes Coca-cola made a mistake by changing its product recipe. Yes, that's sort of similar to SC changing the dynamics of the game, but that doesn't directly mean that CoC will experience the same type of demise.

Imagine if the new coca-cola recipe had actually made it taste better. Sure many people would have been angry and missed their "old coke" but if revenues were rising under "new coke" it wouldn't matter.

Here's another example, many beverage makers have switched from cane sugar to high fructose corn syrup. Changes the "dynamic" of the beverage. Some people didn't like the switch but overall the change was accepted.

There are many examples of implementing change in business that are successful. Change in business is almost a necessity of survival. Sometimes you have to take risks and make changes to your products to get out in front of the competition or remain viable in competitive markets.

Look at blackberry for instance. Blackberry was dominating the smartphone market in the early 2000s. However, when the Iphone came out, Blackberry refused to adapt their brand and follow suit. They chose to keep their "keyboard" in lieu of the larger screen with a touch screen keyboard.

http://business.time.com/2013/09/24/...ed-blackberry/

I can play the analogy game too.

Clearly a student and not an experienced practitioner. No business with any managerial capacity would take major risks with their main cash cow product. It is the unecessary, ill-planned and poorly implemented change to coc that demonstrates a small company out of its depth with such a massive revenue earning product. Risk assessment was either poor or ignored and subordinated to the visioning of how the product should be from the developers viewpoint.......not the customer's.

[Bigjonpt]

I was a diehard Coke consumer. I was very excited when New Coke appeared. Tried it, didn't like it and have been drinking Pepsi ever since. I understand that this is anecdotal, but that's what happens when you mess with the customer.

[Smolson]

Clearly a student and not an experienced practitioner. No business with any managerial capacity would take major risks with their main cash cow product. It is the unecessary, ill-planned and poorly implemented change to coc that demonstrates a small company out of its depth with such a massive revenue earning product. Risk assessment was either poor or ignored and subordinated to the visioning of how the product should be from the developers viewpoint.......not the customer's.

I'm part of the executive MBA program. I received my undergrad years ago, and am now in my 30s. Not that any of that should matter. Don't try and attack my argument by attacking my experience level, of which you know nothing about. That's ad hominem.

What you call ill-planned and unnecessary is your "personal opinion" not fact. It's too early to make a conclusion about the effect of this update. We don't have access to their financial or user records. We aren't able to sit in their developer meetings or look at their various projections.

My main point, that you chose to ignore, was while it's fashionable to make these coke comparisons to demonstrate failure there are equal examples of a lack of risk taking/innovation that have led to failure as well.

See the story I linked on blackberry. Their phones were the "main cash cow" if you will, they refused to adapt and change with the market, and now have a minute share of a market they once dominated.

There's two sides to the coin and if we are going to make comparisons then I say it's important we look at both sides of the coin.

Of course this is all pointless because as I said, we aren't privy to all of the information and data that SC is.

[TheRealClaw]

My OP had nothing to do with New Coke, it was about how a company (coca cola) made a product for one thing (headaches) and then discovered by accident that it had larger appeal in an unintended market (soft drinks)

The old CoC may not have been the intended game but it was better because it was multi dimensional. The current version is one dimensional and no longer has mass appeal

[Tickler]

My OP had nothing to do with New Coke, it was about how a company (coca cola) made a product for one thing (headaches) and then discovered by accident that it had larger appeal in an unintended market (soft drinks)

The old CoC may not have been the intended game but it was better because it was multi dimensional. The current version is one dimensional and no longer has mass appeal

I mean the original Coca Cola used to treat headaches had cocaine in it, too.....so there is the whole it isn't even legal part of the argument to consider if you are trying to make that comparison.

[BurkeKnight]

Sometimes you luck into something really great, a real chief would adapt and continue making the game that people want.

Don't you know, the players are the "Chiefs" and SC is the maker of the game.
They make it, Chiefs play it.

They will work on tweaking the things that should, but they wont make their game, what YOU want it to be.
They will not bring back things that make it more for lazy players, instead of those that go all out in attacking and defending.

Personally, I feel they should severely penalize those defenseless bases you see people doing, just to try to ch3at the system, to get better wars they can win, all because their clan is full of people that can't win a war otherwise.

Yep. If they have bases with less than 80% of that TH's defenses, then instead of clan winning, make it a forfeit, where the other clan wins instantly, and can move on to a REAL war.