I think that this is an extremely interesting question. Innovation by its nature is change. Big companies by their nature, do not adapt to change easily or naturally. Innovation, rather successful innovation is a tricky bag. If you innovate for the sake of innovation, you may make cool stuff, but you won't necessarily be successful. On the other hand, if you don't innovate, you run the likely risk of being overtaken by the competitors. Small companies have the advantage in innovation because they are much more hands on and can see where the greatest needs are, and due to a lack of resources must lean on creativity to solve these problems. Large companies have buffers, coffers, and other 'ers' that inhibit their ability to sense the need for change. They also lack the agility. Sure, there are companies like Apple and Google which could be argued are very innovative companies, however, Apple seems mostly to innovate on the interface and Google seems very fractured and therefore in small groups can enhance on innovative fronts.

The only advice I could offer is to continue to ask yourself the question, "Are we trying to be big or are we trying to be great?". But answer honestly, because it is a deception we lay on ourselves. Greatness may lead to an increase in size (although it doesn't have to), but size has nothing to do with greatness.

I think that there is too much talk about weight and scales. Women in the work fore should not be judged by the size of our jugs (mine are 40 DDD by the way!).

Now while I may not be the brightest light bulb in the chandelier, I believe that if we all ate a daily diet of pancakes and pure VT maple syrup, we would all be in shape. Does Crispin Porter have trans fat?

If so, shame on them.