 |
|
|
|||||
Ozempic-maker Novo Nordisk turned to the actors from Apple’s 2000s “Get a Mac” ads to differentiate its GLP-1 medication amid a rising sea of competitors. On January 20, the Danish pharmaceutical company announced its “There’s Only One Ozempic” campaign starring Justin Long and John Hodgman. The actors are reprising their roles from Apple’s Mac vs. PC ads playing the personifications of a name brand and the alternativebut now for weight-loss drugs. [Video: Novo Nordisk] Long personified Mac in the original Apple campaign by dressing in a more youthful, casual way than Hodgman, who personified a stuffy, dorky PC by wearing glasses and a suit and tie with a closely cropped haircut. (Think Steve Jobs versus Bill Gates.) In the Apple ads, Mac was always portrayed by Long as more cool and capable. In the new Ozempic ad, Long personifies Ozempic, facing off in a mock game show against Hodgman, who plays all of Ozempic’s competitors wrapped up in one dull brown T-shirt. (His hardworking name is “Other GLP-1s for Type 2 Diabetes.”) Hodgman’s character gets the game show’s single question right after the host asks which GLP-1 is approved by the Food and Drug Administration to lower the risk of worsening chronic kidney disease. The answer is, of course, “Ozempic,” which ultimately makes his win bittersweet. The “Get a Mac” campaign was created by Apple’s ad agency TBWA\Media Arts Lab; 66 total spots aired from 2006 to 2009. In 2010, Adweek named it the best ad campaign of the 2000s for connecting technology to humanity. Now Novo Nordisk is hoping some of that magic can rub off. The new campaign aims to reassert Ozempic’s brand equity in the public sphere as it faces business headwinds. It follows both layoffs and lower sales growth at the company, even as its U.S. competitor Eli Lilly is ascendent. The ad also drops shortly after Novo Nordisk’s other GLP-1, Wegovy, hit the market in pill form. In such a competitive landscape, Novo Nordisk is working to make its brand name the standard. “There’s Only One Ozempic” plays up Ozempic’s unique selling proposition in a practical sense, as a solution to chronic kidney disease. But with a jingle based on the song “Magic” and a pair of actors remembered for selling computers, it’s also positioning its drug as the most desirable GLP-1.
Category:
E-Commerce
In the world of business, we tend to believe that success is a direct result of talent, resources, and a “great idea.” We expect that if a company has a track record of dominance, like Google, Amazon, or Apple, they are a sure bet for the next big thing. Yet, the history of innovation is littered with the wreckage of unexpected flops launched by industry giants. From the futuristic promise of the Segway to the early dominance of MySpace, these failures prove that even a massive war chest and a visionary concept cannot guarantee market survival. Here are some of the traps that companies fall into. The ‘Solution in Search of a Problem’ Trap One of the most common reasons for failure is based on “technology push” versus “market pull.” This happens when a company develops a sophisticated piece of technology and then hunts for a problem to solve, rather than starting with a genuine consumer need. Google Glass is a fine example. Technically, it was a marvel, an engineering feat that brought augmented reality to a wearable form. However, Google failed to articulate why the average person needed it. It lacked a defined purpose. The device made people uncomfortable regarding privacy (the “Glasshole” effect), leading to it being banned in bars and theaters before it even hit mass-market shelves. Similarly, the Segway was heralded by Steve Jobs and Jeff Bezos as a revolution in urban transport that would “reshape cities.” But for the consumer, it was an expensive, bulky solution to a problem that didn’t exist. It was too fast for sidewalks and too slow for roads. It was a great idea in theory, but a failure in the real world. The Arrogance of Success Trap When a company is dominant in one field, it can become blind to its limitations. They try to force the approach of their successful core business into a completely different field. Amazons Fire Phone failed because Amazon treated hardware like its retail platform. They packed the phone with “Dynamic Perspective” (a 3D effect) and “Firefly”a button to scan products to buy on Amazon. These were clever technical features, but they served Amazons needs more than the users. Users wanted a robust ecosystem of apps and a reliable interface; they didn’t want a shopping cart in their pocket. Amazons immense success in e-commerce blinded them to the specific needs of the smartphone market. The ‘First Mover’ Trap It is a common precept that being first to market is an advantage. However, Friendster and MySpace prove that being first is a double-edged sword. Friendster had the great idea of social networking long before Facebook. It failed because it couldn’t handle its own success. The servers crashed constantly, and the site became unusable. This technical failure allowed MySpace to take the lead. But MySpace eventually fell into the same trap: It became cluttered with ads and customizable profiles, failing to evolve its user experience as the audience matured. These companies didn’t fail because their ideas were bad. They failed because they couldn’t scale as demand grew. The Timing Trap Bill Gross has studied what makes some start-ups succeed and so many fail. He analyzed the histories of 200 startup companies and compared five factors: the idea, the team, the business model, the funding, and the timing. You can see him relate his findings in his Ted talk, The single biggest reason why start-ups succeed. His findings were striking. The most important factor was timing, then the team, and then the idea. Many startup companies with great teams and innovative business ideas fail because the timing of their launch is unfortunate. And this can be down to luck. The timing trap applies to big companies too. If you launch a product too early, you have to educate the market which is expensive. If you launch too late, youre fighting for scraps. An idea might be great, but the world isn’t ready yet. For example, the online grocery business Webvan failed during the dot-com bubble (Webvan) because high-speed internet and mobile logistics weren’t mature. Twenty years later, the same idea is a multi-billion-dollar industry. Similarly, Google Glass might have succeeded today in an era of TikTok creators and remote assistance, but in 2013, the culture was far more sensitive to “always-on” cameras. Is it Just Luck? In his book The Black Swan, Nassim Taleb argues that we often underestimate the role of randomness in success. A sudden shift in the economy, a competitors unexpected move, or even a global pandemic can make a “great idea” look like a disaster, or a “mediocre idea” look like a stroke of genius. Luck plays a role, but “luck” depends on preparation and timing. Successful companies that fail usually have the preparation but miss the timing. They are so focused on their internal roadmap that they lose sight of the external environment. Lessons for Todays Leaders These failed ventures can teach us some powerful lessons: Solve a Real Problem: You should be able to explain the problem your product solves in one concise sentence. Leave out buzzwords like revolutionary, ground-breaking, or next-generation. Social Context Matters: Technology does not exist in a vacuum. How will people feel when they use it? How will others feel around them? Minimun Viable Product: Build a small cheap prototype or model and show it to discerning customers. Ask, Does it solve your problem? Would you pay money for it? What needs to change? Kill The Losers: Successful companies often suffer from “sunk cost fallacy.” They keep pouring money into a failing venture because they are too proud to admit the “great idea” isn’t working. Agility Over Ego: The ability to pivot is critical. When Slack found that their video games was a flop they switched to producing a communication tool. A great idea is just a hypothesis. The failures of Google Glass, the Fire Phone, and the Segway teach us that the market is a harsh laboratory. Success requires more than just a breakthrough in engineering. It requires an alignment of cultural timing, user-centric design, and the humility to adapt when reality contradicts your vision. Even the giants can fall. It is vital to look at the world through the eyes of the user and stop admiring your own designsno matter how brilliant they appear.
Category:
E-Commerce
The Tesla Cybertruck is the new Ford Edsel, taking the crown from one of the biggest flops in American car history. Last year, the Cybertruck spiraled into market irrelevance while the rest of the EV market found its footing, as the pickup experienced the single biggest sales collapse of any electric vehicle in the United States. Elon Musks flailing company managed to move only an estimated 20,237 Cybertrucks in 2025. And thats counting the units that Musk reportedly bought for himself through SpaceX and xAI to avoid further ridicule. He had his private companies buy hundreds if not thousands of Cybertrucks, wrote Fred Lambert at EV blog Electrek. Thats an eye-popping 48.1% crash from the 39,000 units sold in 2024. Elon, seriously, stop this embarrassment and kill this polygonal joke already. I laughed at first but now its painful to watch. To understand the magnitude of this failure, the all-electric Ford F-150 Lightningan EV pickup so unsuccessful that Ford officially ended its production in December 2025 to pivot to a new hybrid modelstill managed to humiliate Tesla from the grave. Ford sold 27,307 Lightnings in 2025, making it the best-selling EV pickup truck in America. Both companies tried to buy their way out of trouble with heavy discounts and 0% financing offers. But while aggressive incentives helped Ford clear inventory and post growth, the same tactics failed to save the apocalypse-proof” pickup from becoming a sales armageddon. Think about that for a minute: A discontinued EV truck outsold the Tesla truck by nearly 7,000 units and got canceled. Come the truck on. I already called the Cybertruck a flop, but the final sales tally is even worse than I imagined. Its officially the biggest flop in decades, according to Forbes. This is especially humiliating when Musk overpromised sales of 250,000 Cybertrucks annually by 2025. Tesla reached barely 8% of that target. Cybertrucks at a Tesla dealership in October 2025 [Photo: Michael Siluk/UCG/Universal Images Group/Getty Images] Plenty of reasons for failure The reason for the Cybertruck’s collapse isn’t a mystery. Its not the EV slump. It’s the inevitable result of shipping a beta product to customers as a finished vehicle, a design failure since its inception. The truck isn’t just ugly, its fundamentally broken. In 2025 alone, Tesla issued recalls covering a combined 115,912 Cybertrucksmore than double the number of recalls in 2024. That averages out to 318 recalls per day. We are not talking about inconsequential software updates. These were dangerous, amateur-hour defects. The largest recall campaign involved 46,096 trucks that risked shedding their stainless-steel exterior trim while driving, turning the vehicle into a shrapnel grenade on the highway. Another 6,000 trucks were recalled because their optional light bars were attached with the wrong primer and could simply fall off. This follows a chronicle of disasters documented since Musk shattered the unshatterable pickups glass. Weve seen the “stuck pedal” trap that locked accelerators at full throttle, critical system failures where owners drove a mere mile off the lot before the truck died with a “red screen of death,” losing steering and braking redundancy, and misaligned doors and uneven surfaces that Musk himself admitted in leaked emails stuck out like a sore thumb. That’s just a selection of this disaster on wheels. As Adrian Clarkea professional car designer who now writes design critiques for the automobile publication The Autopiantold me when it was about to come out the factory line: The Cybertruck is a low-polygon joke that only exists in the fever dreams of Tesla fans that stands high on the smell of Elon Musks flatulences. Back then, Clarke also called out the terrible design choices that were going to lead to the bevy of manufacturing and quality problems, all part of the design and brand crisis that Tesla has been experiencing since 2023. Bu there’s a third component that completes the Cybertruck’s failure trifecta: Musk’s former bromance with Donald Trump and his DOGE antics. Turns out not all press is good press, as these moves killed the Tesla brand perhaps more than the model stagnation, deadly car accidents, and mechanical failures. Musks political radicalization led many of Teslas existing customers to regret their purchases and potential clients to avoid them, both in the U.S. and abroad. As dealerships got torched and cars vandalized, the Cybertruck arguably became “America’s most hated car. The 2025 sales figures just confirm what we have known for more than two years now. The Cybertruck is not the disruptor Musk sold to the world and Tesla shareholders. It is a finger-chopping brick that depreciates faster than used bridal dresses. An ugly failure that is doing nothing but draining resources and further damaging the brand’s reputation (if it still has one). Its time to bury what’s already dead, Elon. The experiment is over. Sink this polygonal mess deep underground, along with all your failed promises, and call it a day.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||