September 7, 2011

Couples as consumers…

In the past few years, we have interviewed literally hundreds of consumers about a variety of products and services.  Some of my favorite interviews take place with couples.  I’m convinced you get the most “truthful” feedback when you interview two people (in relationship) as opposed to just one.  It’s not that anyone is trying to be deceitful, but people don’t always see themselves (or their own behavior) in the truest of light.  They portray themselves in an idealized manner, either consciously or not.  When we do the same interview with a consumer and their partner, discrepancies will often be called into the light.

Just yesterday we were interviewing a couple about their past purchases of a new product and it’s ongoing usage.  The outspoken husband was telling us in great detail about how he uses a given product.  I noticed his wife making some subtle reactions, but remaining quiet.  Before long, she couldn’t contain herself any longer, and jumped right into the conversation.  ”That’s not at all what you do”, she said.  Then she went on to give her perspective on his product usage.  Naturally, this led to quite a debate between the two of them.  When the discussion finally wound down, they both agreed that the actual behavior was somewhere between what either of them recalled on their own.

This illustrates two points.  First, the best path to consumer understanding is real time, in-context observation.  However, this is not always possible or practical. The second point is, people don’t always see themselves in a true light.  Having another on hand to interact with can bring you closer to reality.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Business, Business lessons, consumer insight, ethnography, innovation, Insight2, observational research

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

August 31, 2011

Work is a game of strategy

I had an odd thought in the shower this morning…  I like playing board games.  I’m not obsessed with them, but I still find them an appealing diversion from time to time.  It hit me that being successful in the workplace is very similar to winning in a strategy board game.

Any given day is like a turn in the game.  You have a fixed number of hours to invest, and you must choose wisely how you do so.  I can envision a series of gauges, that measure where I stand at any given point.  These gauges could represent items like “Manage current business”, “Invest in Future Business”, “Network with Others”, “Increase Knowledge”, “Focus on Employee Morale” etc.  Each gauge could have a bright red line that indicates a dangerously low level, meaning that if your score in that area drops below a certain number, there will be dire consequences.  On any given day, it’s impossible to invest an ample amount of time in each category, but over the course of multiple days (turns), it is critical that no area be ignored.

Like any good game, life throws unexpected twists at us.  “Your project manager has appendicitis and will be out of the office for two weeks”, or “Your newest client just had their budget slashed, and is forced to cancel their current contract with you”.  The impact these events have on you are directly affected by your scores e.g. “Because your networking score is high, the cancelled contract has minimal effect on your long term cash flow”, or “Your Future Business Investment score is too low, the cancelled contract will force you to lay off two employees”.  Ignore other areas of your life, and you’ll also suffer consequences.  “Due to your excessive number of hours spent at the office, your wife has expressed high frustration with your marriage.  Take an unplanned four-day weekend to patch things up.”  Inevitably, there will be those that play this game as if everyone is an opponent, and there will be those that take a team-based approach.  Going it alone?  That’s a high-risk/high rewards path.  You might win, but watch your back.  Playing as a team?  Your progress might be a bit slower, but your odds of making it to the end are much greater.

We play this game every day.  How many of us are watching  to ensure we have some semblance of balance?  How often do we strive to win in one area only to find that we’ve sacrificed in others?  I think I’m going to build some gauges and put on my wall.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Business, Business lessons, change, Creativity, innovation, Insight2, small business, Time stress

Tagged as , , , , , ,

August 19, 2011

How do you define innovative?

We’re wrapping up our work on the Indiana Innovation Awards nominations.  In sifting through the stacks of nominations that were received, we had to boil down

the list before we could provide the finalists to the judging panel.  This led to some fascinating conversations, most of which centered around the concept of what exactly is innovative?

Here’s an example.  Company X launches a widget that contains breakthrough new technology.  The user interface is horrific and as a result, the product fails in the marketplace.  Company Y launches a similar product one year later, but updates the interface (not necessarily with a breakthrough approach, but highly intuitive).  Their product is a commercial success and changes the way people think about and use widgets.  Which company is more innovative?  Is commercialization a key part of innovation?  Is that part of what separates it from mere inventiveness?    What do you think?

The good news is that we were able to pass on many high caliber nominations to our judges.  It’s now their job to do the very tough job of deciding which entries are worthy of the top awards.   We’re very excited about the upcoming awards presentation on September 26!  If you are available, please plan to join us in Indianapolis!

1 Comment

Filed under Indiana Innovation Awards, Innovation Awards, unmet needs, Wal-mart

Tagged as , , , ,

August 8, 2011

Innovation in a vacuum may not be innovation at all

I have had the honor and opportunity to be one of the founders of the inaugural Indiana Innovation Awards.   The goal of this newly formed organization is to recognize and honor outstanding innovation in our state.  Nominations are open to any company or organization that have launched a new product or service in the last two years that is unique and has satisfied some form of unmet need.  The criteria was left a bit vague with the intention of being more inclusive than exclusive in terms of participants.

We are now in the process of reviewing the nominations and summarizing them for our panel of expert judges.  Fortunately, it will be their job, not mine, to determine the ultimate winners.  It is very exciting to see some of the breakthrough new products and services that have been launched in Indiana over the recent past, and it will be incredible to be able to recognize these groups for their efforts.

Equally entertaining are some of the other nominations that have been received.  We had several companies take the time to write up a new product or service that they are quite proud of.  They extolled of all the benefits that they could conceive of, and documented each of the ways that their offering is changing the world.  There’s only one problem.  They’re not innovative.  While it may be a new product to their company, a quick web-search will show that there are numerous competitors already on the market.  Our goal is not to demean or discourage companies that are striving for new revenues in any way, shape or form.  But I do wonder if they’re spending anytime doing competitive analysis or if they are just launching products in a vacuum?  While a new idea may be innovative to your company, it’s ultimately the market that decides its unique value proposition.

 

1 Comment

Filed under Business lessons, innovation, unmet needs

Tagged as , , ,

August 4, 2011

How do you interpret what you see?

Have you ever noticed how different people can see the same thing but take away such different information?  An optimist can read a newspaper article and note that while there are difficulties in the current economy, things are going to get much better.  His pessimistic counterpart can read the same bit and be convinced that we’re heading for sure doom.

It’s no different in the business world.  Three companies can go out and collect the same information via market research.  The first company will find that what they currently provide is sufficient for the marketplace.  The second will note incremental improvements that could improve business, and the third will realize that if they pursue these findings in a bold new way, they can experience growth in an unprecedented fashion.

What makes these companies so different?   It is a combination of attitude and perspective.  The first company noted is change averse, so the information they see merely confirms what they already believe to be true.  The second company knows at some level that they need to evolve and grow, but past failures (or rumors of past failures) have them in an ultra-conservative place where only the safest of change is acceptable.  The third company is destined for growth and change regardless.  The information they find provides them with some strategic direction and focus.

Look closely at this picture of Einstein. Now stand up and step back, it becomes a picture of Marilyn Monroe!

Before you spend a lot of time, money and energy on learning more about your consumer or your marketplace, I would challenge you to take a serious, introspective look into what type of organization you really are.  If you find yourself in the first category, merely seeing something new won’t inspire you to change what you do.  If you’re in the third, developing a deeper understanding of your customer base could provide the critical difference between strategic growth and chaotic change.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Business lessons, consumer percpetions, consumer research, innovation, Marketing

Tagged as , , , , , ,

January 25, 2011

Why Innovation won’t work in your company – Part 4 Misplaced Fear

The problem with embarking on an innovation project is that you can’t know where it’s going to end up (if you did, it wouldn’t really be innovation, now would it?).  Many people (and organizations) have a strong need to be in control of as much of their world as possible.  Getting excited about a breakthrough idea that can lead to a very new and different place?  Not likely.  The further the idea is from “business as usual” the less control they will have.  After all, radical ideas might attract new customers, require new forms of distribution, and put the company in a market with currently unknown competitors.  Without control, any one of these issues could surely lead to failure… And who wants to sign up for that?

Fear of the unknown is a natural trait.  But it is often misplaced.  Good innovation stems from seeing an opportunity in the marketplace, or in meeting a need held by a group of consumers.  If a concept passes these litmus tests, how unknown is it really?  Of course there’s still risk.  But the real question is, “What is the risk of doing nothing?”.  In this day and age, there are few if any markets that stand still over time.  Increasing competition, savvy consumers and disruptive technologies have rocked many an industry.  Relying on past success for future success has become an oxymoron.

Sit through any innovation project with most companies and notice what transpires.  Ideas may surface that range from mild to wild… But which ones almost always are chosen to move forward?  The ones which cause the least amount of stress to the company.  The potentially market-changing ideas are often relegated to a three-ring binder until such time that a competitor enters the market in a bold way, then the binder will be dusted off to see if there are any ideas in-house that could compete.

Max DePree, former CEO of Steelcase once said “We cannot become what we need to be by remaining what we are”.  In this one simple quote, he says a lot.  He recognizes that there is a tremendous desire within any organization to “remain what we are”.  But the reality is, that should be where the fear enters in.  Companies realistically have to focus on one part of this or the other, they can’t do both.  So what is it with your company?  Is your attention on determining what you need to be?  Or are your resources dedicated to remaining what you are?  Yes, change is scary.  But in this day and age, not changing is horrifying.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Business lessons, innovation, Marketing

Tagged as , , , ,

January 19, 2011

Why Innovation Won’t Work in Your Company – Part 3 Lack of Champions

 

 

An innovative idea without a champion behind it is doomed.  I wrote in my last post about  risk aversion tendencies of middle management within most organizations.  There is an exception to that rule.  If an individual in the organization comes up with an idea himself, he might be willing to take some chances to see it through.  Call it personal pride, or tenacity… No one wants to see an idea that they think is tremendous die due to bureaucracy or company politics.  I know the guy at Delta Faucet that came up with the concept of the Touch Faucet.  He recognized that consumers need to be able to turn water on and off at the kitchen sink when their hands are really dirty (think chicken slime).  Some preliminary research showed that when people were doing certain types of food preparation, they would use their elbows or a paper towel to turn the water on/off, to prevent contamination of the faucet handle.  Obviously, this led to some very awkward movement.  So he developed a means of simply tapping the faucet with your wrist or forearm, and have the water turn on, allowing you to wash your hands without worry of spreading bacteria.  Even upon first hearing this, it sounds like a fantastic idea, doesn’t it?

But like most companies, Delta Faucet has a lengthy process to get new product concepts into the marketplace.  Along the way there are many points where various experts weigh in with their individual opinions.  Many concerns were raised… “You can’t mix electricity with a faucet!”, and “This will be way to complex of an install for anyone to be interested in”, and finally (my favorite), “That will be at a price-point beyond what consumers will pay”.  As he tells the story, this project was “killed” three different times during the course of its development.  However, he was not willing to let a good idea die.  Every time the project was killed, he would personally resurrect it and through dogged determination pushed onward.  Fast forward a couple of years and the product is on the market, and exceeding all sales expectations by several hundred percent.  Champions don’t let projects die.

Unfortunately, the case above is far too rare.  Most companies shoot down ideas like the Dilbert cartoon above.  My friend took a risk on this project.  Had it gone to market and not been successful, he could have lost his job.  Fortunately in this case, we’ll never know.  But the real question is this.  Does your company support and enable product champions?  It’s never a job title, it’s a passion.  Are people encouraged to take risks?  What is the upside and the downside for them as individuals?   No one is suggesting that you bring every wacky idea to market, but do you have an infrastructure where top ideas can have an owner?  I’ve even seen situations where concepts of open innovation have been applied, and the true champion is not even an employee – he’s an outside contractor managing a project to fruition.  However you get there, know this.  No breakthrough product will ever see the market without a champion.  Do you have yours?

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under Business lessons, consumer insight, innovation, Marketing, unmet needs

Tagged as , , ,