Why the Flip was doomed to fail

On Tuesday, Cisco announced it would be shutting down its Flip camera business. Officially it said: 

"As part of the company's comprehensive plan to align its operations, Cisco today announced that it will exit aspects of its consumer businesses and realign the remaining consumer business to support four of its five key company priorities -- core routing, switching and services; collaboration; architectures; and video." 

And although they do state that they consider video one of their core businesses, they do not consider consumer video products in that same category. But this announcement should not come as a surprise to anyone. After all, the Flip was doomed as soon as Cisco bought it.

To provide some background, The Flip Video camera was originally developed by Pure Digital Technologies and was first sold in 2006 as the Pure Digital Point & Shoot. A year later that name was switched to Flip Video and hit just in time for the YouTube craze that was taking off at the time. In 2008, the company reported that it had captured 13% of the camcorder market. In 2009, Pure Digital sold the company to Cisco. 

And this is where the fate of the Flip Video was sealed. 

Until the Flip Video purchase, Cisco was basically known for connecting people. Either through routers or—their big push over the last several years—through video conferencing (the idea being that Cisco makes video conferencing over IP possible). But Cisco was never a pure consumer oriented company like Sony or HP. Yes, it had purchased companies like Linksys. But Linksys primarily develops routers, again, hardware that makes the Internet possible.

Cisco's purchase of a purely consumer product was odd. And it really didn't fit in with their brand. I remember seeing the Cisco branded Flip and at first thinking it was a mistake, or that Cisco had some hardware inside (think Intel for PCs). 

Then of course came smart phones with video cameras built in. Many have put the death of Flip directly on iPhone’s and Droid's shoulders. And while this is part of the problem, it's not the only reason. After all, Apple announced the iPhone a full two months before Cisco bought the Flip. You would assume that they could see the problems this might cause. 

It's not because of lack of vision, either.  When Cisco bought Flip, Ned Hooper, senior vice president of Cisco's Corporate Development and Consumer Groups, said that in the future the Flip could have WiFi or 4G connectivity. But again, this never materialized. The Flip seemed more concerned with the quality of the video, coming out in recent years with HD models. 

I think the reason may have been Cisco itself. This mainstay of the S&P 500 was founded in 1984. In the age of start-ups, social media and iPads, 1984 is ancient history. And big companies like Cisco tend not to move too fast. Layers of bureaucracy and a CYA-mentality weigh them down. Techcrunch had a great video discussion in which Chris Dixon provides examples, like Android and YouTube, that shows that when companies with great ideas are bought and left to run themselves, they can adapt pretty well. A product like the Flip needed a nimble company that could adapt quickly. Cisco could never be that company. 

And it's too bad because the Flip was a cool little device, and for a while, at least, it ruled the video world. But alas, it is not the coolest (or even the fittest) that survive; it is those that can most quickly adapt.

I’d love to hear your view on what a product like Flip might have needed to succeed.

Kevin Duffy is the Creative Director for The Duffy Agency's Boston office.