tehrik,
I think you've 100% identified a lot of major issues that people here miss. Getting rid of Iwata definitely means shifting the executive pool more towards Japanese mobile. Based on who Nintendo's investors are and what Iwata's management vision is, you're 100% right there. And I think you're also correct to note that Wii U's failure is small fry compared with structural challenges facing the 3DS and software value perception.
Where we differ is that your strategy seems to have them focusing MORE on Japan while mine favours focusing LESS on Japan. I don't think your strategy is non-viable, though, just not where I'd personally take things. It'll be interesting to see how it goes. I'm also more bullish on them eventually transitioning into a smaller, software-focused role than you are.
I respect your perspective - I think you are spot on about a lot of things. But I just can't get around this really silly notion that somehow Westerners or Americans are progressive and open-minded and will magically transform the company. Sega was killed by Western execs who were giving handouts to their next employer for a job (Peter Moore). One of the biggest regrets Okawa had was giving Sega of America too much power to decide the future of the Saturn - they basically messed it up royally and Sega really had zero control over that organization.
Nintendo is hardly a typical Japanese company. Nintendo is already a very global company. Iwata talks daily to Reggie about what NCL can do to assist in the US market, but the fact that he has given autonomy to Reggie to decide what games get localized or not, is part of the problem. NCL needs to take more direct control over NOA, because otherwise NOA is going to just continue to be a fiefdom that is maximizing its P&L - missing out the strategic objectives of the company - incubating its own Peter Moore.
NCL has already suffered a loss of institutional knowledge in the past.
When Microsoft entered the game in 2000 - they poached away tons of talent at NOA by tripling salaries. While NCL continues to provide a lot of latitude to NOA to make decisions - the idea now is to ensure that NCL employees themselves are aware of what is happening in the US - so that they bring that perspective back to Japan and share the Japanese perspective directly at NOA. This is classic OB and one used by Toyota and other Japanese companies successfully. The idea isn't to exert control, but collaborate to build a single organization. What you propose is really just empirically wrong in building successful product companies.
Also: Nintendo does care deeply about Japan - but that's because it is the source of 80% of their gross profits right now - and their developers are motivated by seeing the local success of the games they work on - it's the one territory where they can charge a premium and tend to keep hardware prices very high. It's also home territory where high-tech tends to lose to great design. It's a territory that has less competition but tremendous potential for profit. It's also the territory that has paid the base dividend needed for management to have the latitude they need to take risks overseas.
Losing Japan would lead to the inevitable decline of their development studios. Something Nintendo can't risk at all - Western gaming development is ultra-expensive and crowded. Nintendo is the star in Japan and attracts the best and brightest at a fraction of the price.
Nintendo's actions have very much been in line with trying to win back their traditional audience in JP, the US and EU - the problem is that audience in the West has moved on and has no interest in coming back to console or handheld gaming. The problems Nintendo is facing are no different than EA, or any number of other companies - many of whom aren't convinced the PS4 or the XBO will get their old audiences back in the long run. Ubisoft is scared to death about the next six months. They all have Western management - many of these Western-managed companies even went completely broke and burned through billions of dollars in the past two gens.
Point being: it isn't about Western or Japanese management - it's about figuring out where the market is going and adapting to it. The whole independence charade is just an excuse for cultural biases and implicitly assumes many demeaning stereotypes.
Nintendo has the most difficult problem because they have a content business that is global, a hardware business that is global, and each territory has different needs and consumption patterns in the family market they compete for.
Tehrik has been a pretty big apologist for Iwata-era NCL management in other threads, so if this is his reaction, you know they're pretty fucked.
Apologist is not the same as being a realist. Why don't you actually read my posts in all those other threads and see my reasons for why I feel Nintendo is a difficult company to run given its design culture - and why Iwata is the best option given his willingness to be collaborative?
Or you know, just make snide remarks in passing.
