There are two agents. Each is capable of producing certain quality consumables. Combined, however, they frustrate one another and can no longer produce the same level of quality product. Why? They have divergent paths and divergent means of achieving success. On their own they stand superior within their alloted mediums. Their mediums may even be complimentary, but they fail as converged properties because their content is not closely associated or complimentary – it just doesn’t make sense to converge the two, because “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. I don’t care what the trends may be. The objectives of the two agents are not similar enough to warrant convergence. ‘Remained Divergence’ is acceptable and natural in this case, and there shall never be unity of the agents. Separate revenue streams are good, in other words!

Therefore, ‘Planned’ or ‘Forced Convergence’ is acceptable when the following pre-requisites are met:
1. Each agent has similar or complimentary content regardless of their mediums.
2. Each agent is originally ‘weak’ in terms of return in and by itself; in other words, either agent does not produce bountiful quality consumables as a standalone or does not get the return on the investment one would expect.
3. Convergence will attract new attention to both agents in positive ways.
4. Unity is the planned end result, never to diverge again. Two agents can safely become one new agent, and eventually the singular agent will be the only agent anyone ever knew.

So, if unity and elimination in the name of creating new end product is the goal, than convergence is warranted and encouraged.

Otherwise, why would you need or try any temporary or experimental convergence simply to follow the trends? Leave the two agents alone! Ancillary revenue streams are acceptable and encouraged, though. Synergy, as it were, is good all the time.

Email

Print

Share

Reblog

Tweet