In the U.S. 2016 presidential election, the rank outsider took on the establishment and won. The scale of the disruption mirrors what we are seeing in the S&P; on average an S&P company is now being replaced every two weeks, and estimates predict that 75% of the S&P 500 firms will be replaced by new firms by 2027. Are people actively rebelling against the status quo or are the big and powerful simplify failing to adapt to change?

1. AREN’T TURNING DATA INTO INSIGHTS
LACK CULTURAL EMPATHY
FAVOR PRIVACY
ARE LOSING TRUST & ENGAGEMENT
Clinton’s campaign was continually side-tracked by the email scandal and alleged
confidentiality breaches. Disruptors by contrast make their manufacturing processes
and practices transparent to promote collaboration and solve business problems.
Thirteen months after launching his bid for the White House, Trump captured the
2016 Republican presidential nomination after 16 party rivals. Initially discounted as
a space travel provider, SpaceX disrupted Boeing and may be the first private
company to fly humans into orbit.
Trump’s team concluded that a key priority was to convince the rust-belt states that
industry could be revived in their towns. In contrast, Clinton’s team failed to harness
the complexity of poll data into actionable insights.
Whilst some brands talk, disruptor brands do. There was stronger belief that Trump
will actually change the status quo. He is a tax-cutter and against foreign wars,
which appeals to many of the U.S. electorate.
Clinton said that the U.S was already great but this defensive stance to preserve the
status quo did not convince the electorate. Trump’s direct call to restore the
country’s greatness resonated more strongly with a nation that felt the need for
meaningful change. Classic brands are also struggling with image relevance whilst
disruptor brands prioritise delivering experiences that are in sync with the cultural
mood.
A famous entertainer once said of Trump that he's the best live performer who
doesn't sing and doesn't play a musical instrument. Trump knows how to pitch for
emotional impact and the same holds true for other disruptor brands who recognise
that distinctiveness and authenticity beats differentiation and artificiality. Whilst the
establishment strive for perfection, disruptors prefer to test and iterate.
With scandals like her paid speeches, the Clinton campaign epitomised a regime
that stood for inequity and self-gain, profit ahead of purpose. From tax evasion to
fraudulent pollution emissions tests, many traditional organisations are losing the
confidence of the public and engagement amongst their own employees.
The status quo feel they have created ‘barriers to entry’ but disruptors find new
ways to challenge the system. Trump is the first American president elected without
political experience. Take a look at another disruptor brand, Amazon; 12 years after
launch, they created their cloud computing arm which is approaching a $10 billion-
a-year business.
ARE OFTEN UNDER-ESTIMATED
DELIVER WHAT PEOPLE WANT
HAVE A MORE AUTHENTIC STYLE
DON’T NEED PROVEN CREDENTIALS
VS
THE
ESTABLISHMENT
THE
DISRUPTORS
In the U.S. 2016 presidential election, the rank outsider took on the establishment and won. The scale of the disruption mirrors
what we are seeing in the S&P; on average an S&P company is now being replaced every two weeks, and estimates predict that
75% of the S&P 500 firms will be replaced by new firms by 2027. Are people actively rebelling against the status quo or are the
big and powerful simplify failing to adapt to change?