Consumer Focused vs. Consumer Driven

I recently found myself in an interesting dialogue with a colleague. I mentioned that successful innovation stems from being focused on the consumer. He agreed but within moments mentioned the phrase “consumer-driven”. I pointed out that I disagreed with him on this, and a perplexed look immediately crossed his face. “But you just said…”, he stated, thinking he was merely restating my original premise. After much discussion, we agreed that this is much more than semantics.

Voice of the Consumer (VOC) research is consumer driven. Purists of this tool insist that anything spoken by a consumer be captured verbatim, and maintained as such throughout the ideation and development process. The belief here is that if you deliver on what consumers say they want, you will be wildly successful. In other words, develop a process where the consumers “drive” what it is provided to the marketplace.

I don’t buy it. I have seen too many focus groups and one on one interviews where the researcher asks consumers “If you could have anything you want, what would you ask for?” That “ground-breaking” question is more often than not met with a room full of blank stares. If answers are provided, they typically reflect an existing product that has been seen by the respondent, but not owned.

The fundamental flaw with “consumer driven” is that your average consumer is not an inventor, a dreamer, or a visionary. Unlike product managers, their world does not revolve around specific products or categories.

Now contrast that with “consumer focused” innovation. To focus on something is to pay it special attention and to understand it from as many perspectives as possible. That still involves interaction with the consumer, but it is not limited to their exact requests. I can learn as much about a person sometimes from what they don’t say as from what they do say. I seldom conduct a contextual interview but what I see people contradicting their own words with their actions. Seeing what they own, how they live, how they entertain themselves, how they interact with their families or communities can all be very telling in understanding what new product or service would best resonate with them.

As product developers and marketers, we need to embrace this. If we allow consumers to drive our efforts, we will be limited to the types of incremental improvements that they can readily envision. We’re the experts on our businesses. Let’s understand our consumers and the true needs they have. Then we can develop breakthrough products that truly delight them!

Business is like a kidney stone...

I woke up yesterday with back pain. While I've had a sore back before, this was different. I assumed I had "slept wrong" and that was the culprit. But as the day progressed I began to wonder if it was actually something else. I've watched my wife endure several bouts of kidney stones, and based on the pain she experienced, it was clear to me that this was not something that I wanted to emulate. So, I searched the internet to see if my condition is in fact kidney-stone based. I found the following image:

Granted, the body in this illustration is shaped differently than my own (thank goodness) and the marked pain is on the opposite side than I am experiencing. However, this (along with the accompanying text) was sufficient to convince me what I am in for. A quick call to my Dr. and I learned that there is nothing they can do to help me; I just have to drink lots of water and let it pass. They did write me a prescription for Vicadin (which probably makes me think this blog entry is much more clever than it really is), which was very helpful. They also asked me to "capture" the stone if at all possible, so they can see what caused it. That should be no problem, since the same web site that helped me to self diagnose, shows me how to capture the stone...

Once again, I can see where I will have to use some imagination to develop the tactics specific to my situation.

I woke up this morning feeling much better. I foolishly assumed that I must have passed the thing last night and I was over the hurdle. Guess what, mid-morning and the pain was completely back...

And that really does make me think of the current state of many businesses.

• There's much pain to be endured at the moment, but there's hope in sight.
• If we can survive the present the future holds great promise.
• There have been some false moments of hope, only to find that we still had a ways to go.

As my mother always used to say, "this too shall pass". In the meantime, pass the Vicadin.

The Cart before the Horse?

I've been watching a new series on the Discovery Channel called Pitchmen . In this show, self-proclaimed informercial superstars Billy Mays & Anthony Sullivan speak with aspiring entrepreneurs each week whose sole goal is to get a shot at a national infomercial and the resulting overnight riches. The show does a good job of showing both high-potential ideas as well as ridiculous ones.

Last week's show had a product being pitched called the "Spin-Gym". The inventor was Forbes Riley, a woman who is a QVC celebrity in her own right. She developed a fitness product that will "fit in your purse" and yet provide you with "total upper body fitness". She was understandably passionate about the product and is promoting it across every channel imaginable.

The problem is two-fold. First, the product is hardly unique. I had a toy as a child that does essentially the same thing (except that my toy made a cool sound when you spun it really fast). I'm not sure how she patented the thing, but evidently she did. But more importantly, this seems to be the classic solution looking for a problem. On the show she had huge body-builders using this product as if to imply their shape somehow came from this tiny product. Yes fitness is a growing trend across America. However, the form of any new product must suggest its intended use in a manner that is believable. Be honest, can you believe in a fitness product that you hold only with your thumbs? You really got the opinion that the "research" they did consisted of putting the Spin Gym into people's hands with the question of "Isn't this the greatest?" or "Can't you feel the muscle burn?". On the show the product was tested in two markets at different price points. Almost no interest was generated in either market.

Having this unique opportunity to see this real-life, time-compressed example was fascinating. This same thing happens across our country everyday, both with entrepreneurs as well as with established corporations. Somebody falls in love with an idea, and becomes blind and deaf to feedback. They are determined to muscle their way into the market, regardless of what they hear.

How much time, money and energy could be saved if they sought the feedback early in the process, at a time when they could still make modifications (to the product or the messaging)? Let's be outrageous here... What if they actually spent the time to understand the needs of their targeted consumer, then designed a product to satisfy it?

It sounds so simple. But it seems to fly in the face of the way so many do business.

Transitions

I went to my oldest son's graduation at Purdue over the weekend. It's hard to believe that he is already finished with college and is ready to enter his next phase of life. At the ceremony there were no protests, no alternate venues or controversy of any kind. But there was a lot of talk of near term discouragement. Over and over we heard that this was the toughest climate for new graduates to enter the job market since the Great Depression. I have no ideas of percentages, but none of my son's friends have been able to secure jobs as of yet. When companies have the choice of hiring new graduates or people that are currently out of work with 5-7 years experience, why would they choose the "newbie"?

As a dad, I'm trying to encourage him to take a long-term perspective and realize the current economy will not stay so dismal forever. And yet, he's facing the same reality that many companies (including my own Insight2) is facing, in that he has to somehow survive the near term to be there in the long term.

Something we're both learning in this interim phase is the importance of taking a non-traditional approach to the future. He went through numerous university sponsored interviews, taking many of them to the second and third levels. But ultimately to no success. Likewise, I've found that the way I've used to sell business is not effective in this climate. Now that he is out of school, I've been pointing him toward my network trying to surface opportunities. In just a week, I've been able to get him as many interested interviews as he was able to get through the university in a semester. From a business standpoint, I can't sell what I've been selling in the way it used to work. I'm having to really open my eyes to new networks to see where the opportunities lie. And I'm having to adjust what I sell to meet the needs of my new clientele.

This is a tough transition for my son. It's been a tough transition for many US companies. But those that survive it will come out of it with a whole new perspective, a leaner approach and a true appreciation for innovative approaches to doing business... or to finding jobs.

Are "Big-Box" Retailers Killing Innovation?

I just got back from the National Hardware Show in Las Vegas where I was able to meet with several associates from different companies. One resounding and discouraging theme that I heard all centered around their absolute dependence on big box retailers such as Wal-Mart, Lowes and Home Depot. They all spoke of great product ideas that they had developed, but were not going forward with because they could not sell them in to these behemoths. The buyers are not interested in taking chances on "unproven" products or in expanding beyond their comfort zones. One of my associates used to work for a heating company. He told me that in the five years he was there, he went through 6 buyers. No single buyer ever lasted through an entire heating season. In other words, they were never around to be held accountable for the items that they agreed to put in their stores. He described these buyers as "ultra-conservative, MBA bean counters with a very short term focus". No one with this mind set is going to be willing to take a chance on "unproven innovation". They only want to force ongoing cost reductions as they focus on their internal margins. If a buyer is only going to be in a job for a short time, what incentive is there to take any risk?

Things have not always been this way. There was a time when I worked for Whirlpool Corp and was the product manager for Kenmore refrigerators. In those days, the appliance buyer at Sears was like a King. Once a person made it to that level, he was there for quite some time, until a larger category opened, or they left the company to go onto greener pastures. The buyer carried a lot of weight; one of the most important aspects they looked for was unique innovation. We would often include the buyer throughout the product development process, so they could appreciate the needs of the consumer, and recognize the value of the features that we placed on their products. They would work with us on merchandising and placement as we all had a vested interest in the product's success. As time went on, relationships grew and trust was strengthened. They were more willing to share in the risks with us as we ventured into new product spaces.

The companies that I was visiting with have been forced to cost reduce themselves to the point that they now only focus on the big box retailer. They no longer have the means to support distribution to the type of independent shops that would love a unique product offering.

It's truly a shame in my opinion. I saw several great ideas (behind closed doors at the show) that will not make it to market. And for everyone I saw, I heard of two more that fall into the same category. Many of these were products that I would personally love to own (or at least have the opportunity to buy). But I will never have the chance to. What has become of our enterprising culture of innovation? I love to save money just like the next guy, but you know what? When I'm not shopping for commodities, I'm going to start shopping at independent retailers. The ones that might be looking out for my best interests (as a consumer) instead of shear volume and short term profitability.

Are unmet needs an oxymoron?

Unsettling thoughts in the shower this morning... What exactly is an unmet need, and why are so many people / companies fixated on satisfying them?

Everybody talks about helping companies uncover their customers' unmet needs. I've been guilty of it myself. The term has become commonplace across many industries as well as across multiple disciplines. As far as I know, no one has ever questioned it's meaning, so I should probably leave well enough alone.

For some reason, I couldn't shake this question while in the shower this morning. When you think about it, we all have needs. Sometimes we can buy a product or service that alleviates those needs, at which time the need (by definition) goes away. I guess it is safe to say that need has been satisfied. Does that make it a "met need"? Once a need has been met, it is no longer a need...

When we help companies focus on innovation for their consumers, we look for opportunity space by focusing on their likes, dislikes, processes, and attitudes. But how do we distinguish between "unmet needs" and regular needs?

Literally speaking, I'm thinking the phrase "unmet needs" is like a double negative used in a sentence (E.g. "I won't not be there tomorrow" means "I will be there"). If that is the case, then does unmet need literally mean there is no need?

I'm going to do two things moving forward. First, I'm going to start focusing only on consumer needs (not unmet needs). Second, I'm going to try to think of more interesting topics in the shower...

Seeking Conformity - Part II

I'm still on vacation, and played another round of golf yesterday. I used my brother's clubs since I am staying at his house. He has much nicer (and much newer) clubs than I have, so any inadequacy that I had cannot be blamed on that. The course was in fantastic shape, which removed another excuse. Being a private course on a weekday, there were very few groups playing, so I can't even say that we were being rushed or pressured. And yet, I still played pathetically.

It struck me afterwards that there is another type of conformity that we all aspire too and that is mastery. It doesn't matter what we're doing, be it work or play, we all have an image of what "should be" and we measure shortcomings against it. There's nothing wrong with that, in fact it's what drives us toward continuous improvement.

But that led me to think about the way we research common products and develop ideas for new ones. Had an observational researcher followed me around the course yesterday, he would have made notes about my unmet needs. E.g. "While Jerry has a lot of power off the tee, he struggles with consistent direction", or "Jerry is unable to read some of the intricacies of the sloping greens".

The researcher might even take these discovered unmet needs back into an ideation session to generate solutions. "Let's make a club that you can't slice", or "Let's put a chip into the putter that can automatically read the curvature of the green to allow for more accurate putting".

Let's imagine further that they could actually produce such products. Would that be a good idea? If suddenly I could record scores like Tiger Woods, that might be exciting for a fleeting moment, but what lasting value would that have? In fact, if such clubs were allowed by the PGA, it would realistically kill the sport. Conforming to Tiger's ability without working for it takes away any pleasure that it would bring. I would much rather learn to get better with the equipment I have (or that I'm borrowing) than to have some that corrects everything for me. I only appreciate my great shots when they stand in stark contrast to my bad ones.

What about the products you make or use? Are all unmet needs equal? How do you distinguish between those that will enhance the life of a person, and those that will ultimately disappoint? Should our goal be to make everyone equally proficient with everything they use?

It's got me thinking...

A marketing dilemma

I’ve been reading Norm Brodsky’s book “The Knack”. I’m only a few chapters into it, but I now feel faced with an interesting dilemma. Norm says he never recommends that anyone launch a highly unique business, because few can afford to educate the market about what the service provides. Leave the breakthrough stuff to the Microsofts and the Apples of the world. The rest of us should seek out markets where there are already a number of competitors, then figure out how to separate ourselves from the pack.

For years, I’ve been trying to separate my business from other main-stream businesses by providing a unique position and offering. Those that have used us have been very pleased, which is evident by our 90% return rate of customers (doing follow on or whole-new projects). However, it has been traditionally tough for us to land new clients. Almost all of our new clients have come to us through recommendations from our existing relationships. Now I’m coming to realize that trying to be so unique may have actually hampered our growth.

This is a tough pill to swallow for a guy (and a firm) that is dedicated to finding the unmet needs of our clients and offer a service that directly satisfies them. It’s great for those “in the know”, but obviously a tough message to communicate to new prospects.

It’s human nature to categorize things into buckets that we currently understand. When we come across a wholly new offering, we immediately attempt to equate it with something we’re familiar with. It doesn’t matter if it’s a perfect fit, it’s just important that we can classify information in such a way as to not be constantly overwhelmed. Once a service is categorized, then we can mentally go through the process of differentiating one service from another (in terms of metrics that we comfortably use; price, speed, quality, etc.).

There’s nothing wrong with being unique. In fact it’s a critical factor in a competitive world. But, there’s obviously a big difference between having a unique offering, and talking about it in a strictly unique way. Introduce people to your product or service in ways that are familiar to them. Once there, help them to see how you have a unique solution to satisfy their needs.