The problem with the concept is that it is extremely macroscopic. If you were a shareholder of Kodak, or an employee at Kodak with 20 years of experience in making film products, you got the full blast of the "destruction" part of the concept. Somewhere else a completely different set of people that invested in and developed digital photography reaped the benefits of the "creative" part of the concept. You might consider that as a business case, where the company Kodak failed to go with the time. But the reality of things is that neither existing experience in developing chemical film, nor existing machinery to produce it, are of any use when making digital cameras. There are examples of companies that managed to adjust to innovation, but even there people with the "old" expertise got fired and replaced by people working on the new technology.

Expertise, and especially the level of expertise needed to make something really good, is often highly specific. You probably all heard stories of video game companies that had great expertise in making excellent single player games; then management decided to make live service games instead, and it turned out that the same people who made great single player games now made pretty mediocre live service multiplayer games and the game studio closed down and fired all the devs.

In a previous post on D&D I mentioned how I had hoped that Sigil, the official D&D virtual tabletop software, would revive the D&D brand and enable me to find people online to play with easily. On paper, that idea wasn't so bad. But it is also easy to understand that programming such a software product needs very different expertise than making a printed D&D book. Hasbro / WotC quite obviously failed to secure the expertise at a high enough level, and thus wasted 30 million dollars to make a mediocre and barely functional product nobody wanted. Creative destruction to make a better D&D *could* have worked, especially if they had added the right sort of tools to turn played games into Twitch streams and YouTube videos. But Hasbro had neither the technical skills to pull that off themselves, nor the management skills to secure a mutually beneficial collaboration with another company that does have that sort of expertise. Sadly, in the history of the companies owning D&D, the mutually beneficial collaboration with Larian Studios was an exception, and didn't last. There are far more examples of TSR/WotC/Hasbro trying to screw the outside contributors to the success of D&D, instead of understanding how essential these people were. It is now uncertain whether there will be a lot of innovation in how we play multiplayer roleplaying games in the coming years, and whether that will involve the D&D brand at all.