With a combination of a small number of people + software + servers and robots.
We are promoting a new era of company management.
I hope to share some of the process in this section.
Branding and marketing are two business terms that we tend to casually mention.
Surprisingly, it's a peculiar thing that I can't really explain its definition or use.
It's not something you can hold in your hand, and it's not something you can see, so it's hard to convey, but here's how Mogic explains it
Branding: Showing what you want to show and not showing what you don't need to show
Marketing: something that is casually placed in the recipient's line of sight.
A clear example of branding is theme parks, which are designed so that no living apartments are visible in order to maintain the world view.
Marketing is the gum next to the cash register at the supermarket. It's the place where you get bored waiting for the cashier and think about buying some, come to think of it.
However, the two are not relative, and it would be nice if they were blended well.
In the case of a theme park, branding is used to create a world view, and marketing is required to place the merchandise section near the entrance and exit.
And since both terms are ongoing ing, we need to think about how to capture the fact that "the way we feel changes over time.
In talking with many interns, I often encounter the concern that they have not yet found what they want to do in the future, or that they have too many things they want to do to decide.
I don't think there is any need to rush into anything, so I just comment that I hope it will be decided soon.
I once heard about this from someone who is famous for teaching job hunting.
I told him, "Based on my experience, 90% of people don't know what they want to do. That's normal," he said.
I felt that this situation was similar to something, and in retrospect, I found it to be similar to "people who want to start a business.
"I want to start a business, but I haven't found what I want to do yet.
The bottom line is that it is quite difficult to pick something and choose to focus on it when you have a lot of discretionary freedom.
If your only option is to get a job, and you have to choose between 10 companies, it might be simpler.
If you only have three business models and you have no choice but to start a business now, it may be easier to make a decision.
If you assume that you can freely choose the timing and direction, you will begin to struggle to focus in the next moment itself.
So if we dare to think that our choices in life are limited, we can naturally reduce the effort of focus.
As I was working on the PS5 and Switch games, I remembered that the NES had two buttons.
It has a simple structure with a single cross key on the left and A and B buttons on the right.
The game screen is also flat, and the story is one-directional.
It's like a different era now, with high quality 3D polygons, no loading, an open world, and online collaboration.
The NES was released in 1983, the Super NES in 1990, and the PlayStation in 1994, so we are talking about 40 to 25 years ago, and whether you think this is a while ago or a long time ago depends on your perspective.
If we trace the same period of time in business, it seems like a blink of an eye since the introduction of computers in offices around the time of the bubble economy and the beginning of the Internet connection until today.
I didn't work during that period, though, and the reason it seems so short is probably because the changes don't seem as drastic as in the game.
The accelerated growth of semiconductors, exemplified by Moore's Law, has allowed us to express ourselves in games in a wide variety of ways.
You can choose your gender, age, and clothing, and there are plenty of non-human settings to begin with.
Not only can you tailor your comments and atmosphere to fit your character, but you can also freely search for people you like.
The company's operations are also not directly subject to Moore's Law, so they won't change as quickly as games, but I imagine that the UX (user experience) will be similar to games.
It's the same in that you can work alone or collaborate with someone else, and games are more advanced in terms of motivating you.
However, not all of them need the complicated controller operations of a console game, but will rely on the fun and continuity of the game as the occasion demands.
I can see how things get old over time.
T-shirts start to fade, the water heater breaks down and stops working, and the toner in the printer starts to fade.
However, unlike objects, it is difficult to judge whether our way of thinking itself is getting old or new.
Whether the idea is old-fashioned or not will also depend on what you subjectively base it on.
In this section, we will measure oldness only in terms of "effectiveness".
An example that is easy for working people to understand is learning to speak English.
More than ten years ago, there were only a few ways to learn English.
Do you want to learn from books, listen to CDs or the radio, go to classes, watch DVDs, or make friends who speak English?
Nowadays, with the spread of technology, there are more options than ever before, including Youtube, foreign news sites, video services such as Netflix, online English conversation, pronunciation evaluation applications, and automatic translation for online meetings.
If the same person invested the same amount of time in learning, he or she would learn more "effectively" with a combination of current options than a decade ago.
In that respect, there is room for new ways of thinking about learning English.
Things seem to be continuously connected from new to old, but in my way of thinking, I feel that we need to invent newness itself.