r+d

Posts on innovation, user experience, research and design 
Filed under

strategy

 

Facebook Places logo is a four in a square

4sq

Kudos to Tim Shey/TechCrunch for finding this. Even more kudos to the graphic designer at Facebook (or whichever design shop they're using) who came up with it. If Facebook Places succeeds in crushing Foursquare (or even just marginalizing it), this could go down as one of the better, more vindictive logo designs. Not only is it clean, but it carries this really aggressive message. Notice how the placemarker also conveniently doubles as a spade, effectively stabbing the "four in the square". Evil genius.

Filed under  //   Facebook Places   Foursquare   design   location   strategy  

Comments [0]

Positioning customer experience first

Netflix

Yet another great strategy deck from Netflix. Things I love about this:
  • Netflix isn't scared to share their strategy publicly. I think this is a sign of a very confident and aware company that fully understands the position it holds as well as the position it's traditional and non-traditional competitors hold. It also defuses the mysticism around corporate strategy, which is refreshing.
  • Slide 21 - I love the way they talk about innovation as it relates and ties into the customer experience. In a nutshell, if it isn't good for customers, they won't roll it out. I also like how they have provided developers a 10,000 subscriber sandbox to play with. It's real customers, real data and a large sample set to draw conclusions from. Multivariate testing isn't new, but it's nice to see how they've systematized it.
  • This ties into bullet number one, but their SWOT analysis starting on 26 is just perfect. It's in plain English and it's honest not only with themselves but with their competition. I particularly like this statement: "Any giant can enter our space and hurt our profits, but they have no ability over us except the ability to spend. They have little chance of significant profits in our segment because we have to defend this segment to the bitter end because we have nowhere to exit to." This is great on so many levels - it's confident, it's informed and it acknowledges the space they operate in and must win in to survive.
  • Slide 38 is perfect. "If subscribers keep raving about Netflix, we will prosper." The best "strategy statement" I've read in a while. Again, this type of simplicity and candor is what we've come to expect from Netflix, but it just never wears thin.

http://www.slideshare.net/reed2002/netflix-business-opportunity

Filed under  //   Netflix   customer experience   strategy  

Comments [0]

Five Lessons from Five Guys

Dsc_6376

I love Five Guys Burgers and Fries. Everything about the experience of going to our Five Guys around the corner is great. You're greeted cheerfully when you enter, the store is clean, there are salty peanuts to shell while you wait for your food, the burgers and fries are solid, and they do little things like putting little sticker numbers on the wrappers of the burgers that correspond to the order you ordered them, so you know which burger is which before opening it up. I know #1 is my wife's, number #2 is me and #3 is the one to split for my kids.

So even before I read this article in Inc. I was a fan, but the interview with Jerry Murrell really brings it all home. It's clear now why Five Guys stands head and shoulders above the competition: Mr. Murrell and his boys maintain a tight, Jobs-ian like grip on quality. They know exactly what they want their restaurants' customer experience to be about and they haven't compromised in executing it. 

The whole interview is great, but here are
 five lessons from Five Guys:

 

  1. Our best salesman is our customer. Treat that person right, he'll walk out the door and sell for you.
    Totally obvious, but completely overlooked countless times by so many companies. The reason many marketers see Facebook and other social networks as the ultimate marketing goldmine is because word of mouth recommendations are the most powerful marketing around. And really, lots of companies give lip service to this, but Five Guys is living it.
  2. We don't do coffee. We don't do milkshakes. We don't deliver. We don't have drive-thrus. If you're in a hurry, there are a lot of really good hamburger places within a short distance from here .
    It's seems antithetical to say that great customer experience are often built around saying "no" to customer-requests, but in many cases it's absolutely true. Saying no to things that aren't core to your business allows you to spend more time and resources on excelling in your core areas: having a great product and out-executing your peers. A story from Mr. Murrell on this:

    "When we first opened, the Pentagon called and said, "We want 15 hamburgers; what time can you deliver?" I said, "What time can you pick them up? We don't deliver." There was an admiral running the place. So he called me up personally and said, "Mr. Murrell, everyone delivers food to the Pentagon." Matt and I got a 22-foot-long banner that said ABSOLUTELY NO DELIVERY and hung it in front of our store. And then our business from the Pentagon picked up."

  3. Stick with two tomato slices
    "About five years ago, hurricanes killed the tomato crop in Florida, and prices went from $17 to $50 a case. So a few of my franchisees called and said, "We're not using tomatoes. The prices are too high." I suggested using one slice instead of two. My kids were furious: "It should be two! Always!" They were right -- it's too easy to start slipping down that slope. We stuck with two slices, and so did our franchisees."

    There are countless stories from Apple relating how Steve Jobs absolutely wouldn't relent on certain key interface or ergonomic issues. One button on the mouse. No battery access on the iPod, etc. Despite lots of compelling evidence that these choices didn't reflect the best experience for users, Steve adamantly believed these design decisions were critical to his vision for the device. That commitment to vision is critical to quality. You see that same commitment with Five Guys, only with tomatoes. Sure they are selling burgers, but more importantly, they're selling quality, repeatability, consistency. They can't get that if their product, experience and sense of corporate direction are swayed by the winds of market changes.

  4. Trouble over the details
    "We taste-tested 16 different types of mayonnaise to find the right one. We have two third-party audits in each store every week. One is called a secret shopper -- folks pretend they're customers and rate the crews on bathroom cleanliness, courtesy, and food preparation. Then we have safety audits -- they identify themselves and check all the kitchen equipment. The crews make about $8 or $9 an hour. If they get a good score, they will split another $1,000 among them, usually five or six people per crew. A press release goes out to every store announcing the winners. Right now, it's the top 200 stores. Last year, we paid out between $7 million and $8 million; this year, it will be $11 million or $12 million."

    This is sort of an add-on to #3 but it really brings it home. You have to trouble over all the details of you operation if you want to maintain the quality and integrity of your vision. Even the mayonnaise. Get involved in the details to demonstrate the direction for your team. Test to measure your effectiveness. Incent your team to drive the behaviors you value.

  5. Stick to what works
    "We make the same bun we started with. We hired the old guy who used to bake our bread for the first store, and one of his partners. They work in the Virginia bakery. We have 10 bakeries scattered around the nation. Our bread is baked daily, picked up by 3 p.m., and put on truck or plane so every store gets fresh bread every morning, even if they are 400 miles away from the nearest bakery."

    In some businesses, this mindset is poisonous to innovation. In others, it's the key to success. For Five Guys, sticking to what works is fundamental to the customer experience they are creating. The buns they started with were the best at the time and continue to meet their needs. Mr. Murrell says elsewhere that there are many vendors who could provide buns for less money, but right now that's not a concern of his. What is a concern is quality, which is his competitive strength. Now, if a competitor to Five Guys were to come along who undercut him on price and approximated the quality, sticking to this strategy might be a problem. But for right now, it's exactly what they need to simplify and maintain control over the experience.

Who's hungry?

 

 

 

Filed under  //   Five Guys   associate experience   customer experience   innovation   quality   strategy  

Comments [0]

Winning the fringes

720px-normal_distribution_pdf

I came across two articles today that both deal with the same subject, the mass of people in the center of the distribution curve. This, of course, is where you find your "average" customer. Only that's the problem. There aren't any average people or average customers. If you're conceiving of an "average customer" for your business and designing your product for that average person, you're probably not doing as well as your competitor who has a better understanding of your real customers and their real goals.

The first article came from James Surowiecki. In his New Yorker column, he describes how companies catering to the luxury market (Apple, Hermes, etc) as well as companies catering to the discount/value market (Acer, H&M) have both done relatively well in the downturn. Meanwhile, pretty much anyone in between those poles has suffered. 

For Apple, which has enjoyed enormous success in recent years, “build it and they will pay” is business as usual. But it’s not a universal business truth. On the contrary, companies like Ikea, H. & M., and the makers of the Flip video camera are flourishing not by selling products or services that are “far better” than anyone else’s but by selling things that aren’t bad and cost a lot less. These products are much better than the cheap stuff you used to buy at Woolworth, and they tend to be appealingly styled, but, unlike Apple, the companies aren’t trying to build the best mousetrap out there. Instead, they’re engaged in what Wired recently christened the “good-enough revolution.” For them, the key to success isn’t excellence. It’s well-priced adequacy.

Shortly after reading this article, I happened onto a post covering a similar topic from a different angle. This view was from the 37 Signals blog and recounted a familiar story facing application designers the world over. However, this view seemed to espouse a different take: the middle majority was where the design should be focused:

When we questioned one specific UI element (which dominated the design), we found ourselves defending it with an “Imagine if someone wanted to…” That’s when the red flag went up. “Imagine if…” is always a red flag. It doesn’t mean the imagination won’t prove to be right, it just means slow down, step back, and get back to what’s real for a moment. Any scenario can be imagined. Any use case can be dreamed up. But is this something a majority of the people will really need? Is there solid ground beneath this feature or is it floating in fantasy land?

So you've seemingly got both a case for and against designing for the middle.

In the former, there appears to be peril in designing middle of the road products. In the latter, there's appears to be peril in designing for anything other than the "majority" in the middle. Which is right? Well, it's not quite that simple. 

I might argue that the issues each article is talking about has less to do with application development specifically or any new trend emerging from the Great Recession. The central issue is that if you don't know who your users/customers are, you can't make a good product and you won't be as successful as the companies that do understand their customers. 

Apple is using solid industrial design and outstanding marketing to imbue computing products with a certain luxury cache. They are tapping into a well-defined market of people who not only want a computer that works, but a computer that makes a statement about their personality ... and who are willing to pay a premium to make that statement. This is a specific market. Acer is attacking the value-focused customer. The one who is willing to sacrifice cache for affordability and utility. Both companies get their market. 

Though I don't have the evidence to support this statement, I might suggest that the companies in between these poles view their customers along the lines of - "Most people can't afford Apples and want something better than Acers". If you're defining your market in terms of your competitors left-overs, that's a problem.

Great Recession or not, you must design for a specific set of people with a specific set of goals. And that's where the 37 Signals post comes in. Although I think it was a little mis-stated, the author was getting at the point that you actually don't design for the majority of amorphous users, you design for the specific goals that your known users need to accomplish. Features that aren't on that freeway connecting users with their goals should be excised.

Applications and companies are similar in this respect. If you know your customers, you win. In any market.

Filed under  //   Acer   Apple   James Surowiecki   marketing   strategy  

Comments [0]

Products are Afterthoughts

Interesting video of Steve Jobs from a *few* years back, discussing the importance of core values for a company. He accentuates the very clear distinction between selling products as a goal and selling products as a byproduct of a core value. In Apple's case, here's what that meant then:

"What [Apple] is about isn't making boxes for people to get their jobs done . . . although we do that well. We do that better than almost anybody in some cases. But Apple is about something more than that. Apple at the core, its core value is that we believe that people with passion can change the world for the better."

Watching this reminds me of the following ad, which I remember having as an .MOV file and transferring from Mac to Mac as I went through college because I didn't want to lose it. If not for YouTube, I'd probably still have it on my hard drive.

 

Filed under  //   Apple   Steve Jobs   strategy  

Comments [0]

The Death of "Late Night"

Hutch Carpenter, VP for Insights as Spigit, dug up this gem from Rashmi Sinha, CEO of SlideShare. In Rashmi's post "Is it time to reimagine your product/service?" she notes:

The problem with being the vintage of your launch year is that the domain gets reimagined. You get left behind even if you are doing everything right. This is the classic problem that so many companies face – they are innovative when they launch. They continue on the path they launch with, which they get traction with initially. At a certain point, they are executing so well, that they get left behind. Their success contains the seeds of their becoming obsolete

This is a great insight I've seen on display in many products throughout my career. Products, that once addressed a glaring value denial gradually fell out of touch with the direction their market was moving. By the time they realized the ground had moved beneath them, it was often too late. With this in mind, I found Jimmy Fallon's comments to NY Mag about the brouhaha surrounding the late night lineup at NBC to be particularly insightful:
The late-shifting at NBC may send Jay Leno back to 11:35 and push Conan to midnight (or another network) but at least Jimmy Fallon isn't [upset] about doing his show a half hour later. "I'll do my show at 3 in the morning," Fallon told New York Times reporter Bill Carter during a talk at the Times' Arts & Leisure Weekend last night. "I'm just happy I have a job." Fallon pointed out that his younger, DVR-loving audience doesn't watch him play beer pong with Betty White in real time anyway. "Time doesn't really matter to me," he said. "We're in a different age. Time is like... I don't even know what time 'Jersey Shore' is on. It doesn't matter - I'll see it." 

I love that comment about Jersey Shore, btw. In any case, as this drama unfolds, NBC, Conan and Jay are the incumbents with years of labor and accomplishments on the line. Fallon's a startup playing with house money. He's like a kid with a dream job he fully expects to lose at any moment but is thrilled to have it while it lasts. He's the guy who has nothing to lose. I love that mentality.

More importantly, he represents a younger generation and carries with him a different perspective on media consumption that is native to that generation. Not that Conan and Jay aren't acutely aware of DVR's impact on their viewership, but they and NBC and their affiliates remain fixated on a time-based structure that is in the process of being disrupted. From a near-term business standpoint, it makes perfect sense and I would be loathe to suggest a different tactic to preseve their revenue stream. 

However, this is exactly the point that Rashmi is making: it's hard to innovate when you have such a reason for stasis baked into your business model. NBC's concerns feel more like "but that's the way it works best". What they aren't paying enough attention to is the fact that the need to conform to some artificial time structure is disappearing. Already, "prime time" and "late night" are radically decoupled from their monikers. With Hulu, DVR, and any number of other technologies, "late night" is whenever consumers want it to be. Hence Fallon's point. The key to their success is content.If the content isn't good, it won't be on consumers' screens . . . at any time of the day. And that's where NBC should be focusing its time and efforts. Content. 

Maybe Jay's show isn't all that great and maybe it is killing the affiliate lead-in. But affiliates need to consider that in a few years the concept of a "lead-in" will be utterly archaic. When consumers everywhere are making their own TV playlist, there won't ever be a lead-in. Ever. If you don't have compelling content, you won't be seen by anyone. Affiliates take careful note of this point. Jay's weak show isn't the cause of your struggles. It's a canary in the mine.

Updated (1/12/2009)
 After posting this, the NY Times had a great writeup on the topic. Some remarks that speak to the Rashmi's point and my additional commentary (juicy stuff in bold):
Not since New Coke has a storied brand been so thoroughly maimed. “The Tonight Show,” once a gilded entertainment franchise, is now just one more broken toy in the mistake pile. “You have the combination of expired content, in terms of current public taste, appearing at the wrong time on a medium that has lost its salience, by whatever standards you use,” said Paul Levinson, professor of communication at Fordham University.

The message to the younger talent is one thing — wait for a turn that may never come or may be taken back at any second — but the message to younger audiences is even clearer: a legacy industry will default to legacy assets and ride them down to the bitter end.The network model explains why Ted Koppel is favored over younger talent to serve as interlocutor on “This Week” and why, when networks make what they see as a risky move — hey, let’s put a woman in the anchor chair — it will be someone like Katie Couric or Diane Sawyer, both of whom have been on television for decades.

That's it exactly.

 

Filed under  //   Conan O'Brian   DVR   Hulu   Jay Leno   Jimmy Fallon   Late Night   NBC   innovation   media   strategy  

Comments [0]

Innovation and Business Success

A colleague of mine posited a question to my team this morning after reading a provocative blog post from CFO Magazine entitled "Do Banks Care About Innovation". Here's an excerpt:
"..In a survey on innovation from Accenture that polled vice presidents, directors, and managers at 640 large U.S. and U.K. companies, responses from executives at banks and capital-market firms stood out. More than two-thirds of those execs said their organizations prioritize short-term financial results over investing for the long term. Very few saw innovation playing an important role in efforts to increase operational efficiencies and reduce costs. And more so than executives in any other industry, they characterized their quest for innovation as searching for the next "silver bullet" rather than "a diverse pursuit of new opportunities."

Based on the demographic from the survey, the question should really be refined to: "Do Big Banks Care About Innovation?" But even that's misleading. There's a nuance in here that deals with misconceptions about innovation. Innovation does not necessarily mean "invention" but it sounds as though some of the execs interviewed were thinking about silver bullet/breakthrough innovations. But being innovative is more like the Tour de France. Many people who win the early stages (the actual inventors) are not the ones who develop winning business models around those inventions. As Jim Collins notes in "The Most Creative Product Ever", being inventive or first to market often doesn't necessarily mean all that much. You can be innovative but be very, very late to the game. See MP3 Players/Apple/iPod for a great recent example. Here's how Jim puts it.  

Great companies do not necessarily have innovation as a central part of their vision or strategy. They are just as likely to be followers as they are to be leaders with pioneering products and leading-edge services. IBM, for example, grew from a one-building small business into one of the largest corporations in the world because of its professional sales force, not its product innovation. In fact, when IBM fully launched into computers, in the early 1960s, it already lagged far behind rival companies, such as Burroughs, in innovative computer technology. And it was Diner’s Club, not American Express, that invented the modern credit card. American Express didn’t introduce its card until eight years after the debut of Diner’s Club—hardly leading-edge behavior. Nordstrom, Wal-Mart, McKinsey, Marriott—none of those companies attained success primarily through innovation.

Certainly, some great companies—notably Sony, Johnson & Johnson, W.L. Gore, and 3M—have innovation as a core value or an integral part of their strategy. So, you can be innovative and great. But the fact remains: you do not need to have innovative products, services or technologies, or visionary market ideas, to create a great company.

Jim's article was written in 1997, before the Internet arguably became one of the most compelling and powerful technological AND social innovation in a very long time (Guttenberg’s press maybe is on par). However, his point was clear - innovation isn’t critical to a company being “great”. So this brings me back to Vincent's question: "Do big banks care about innovation?"

Why pick on banks? Why not any company? The question is probably best positioned as "Should anyone care about innovation?" and do some degree the answer is both yes and no. You certainly can't be a luddite and excel in today's world. But putting too much emphasis on forcing breakthrough inventions is also not likely to be a winning strategy for most companies. 

When all is said and done, people don't remember that Edison didn't invent the first lightbulb (22 others came before him), Apple didn't invent the MP3 player (countless others came before them), or Ford the first car (Karl Benz had the patents nearly 30 years before the Model T), we just remember who did these things better than anyone who came before them and generated lasting success.

Breakthrough innovation is great and important, but a company's ability to "innovate" processes and business models that allow them to out-execute their peers/competitors is every bit as important to a company's success.

PS - If you read the Collins article, try not to smile too much over Jim's pseudo-eulogy for Apple. What a difference 12 years can make. Apple has gone from a coulda-been-a-contend/also-ran to the poster child for innovation. In Jim’s defense, the way Apple has roared back to life is by being VERY late to the game in a lot of core areas but very acutely attuned to the social aspects of the technology they developed. Apple came back to life through the very social innovation Jim holds up as critical to greatness.

Filed under  //   Apple   Jim Collins   innovation   strategy  

Comments [1]

Data-Driven Innovation - Google DNS

I came across a rare blog post yesterday evening. It's rare because it stitches together data from a couple of places to help solve a conundrum. In this case, it also illustrated some fantastic vignettes on usability testing, data-driven strategy and innovation. What was the conundrum? Yesterday, Google launched its DNS service but it hasn't been exactly clear why. Google's official response effectively states that "It's good if the Internet is fast because people can be more productive." Sounds altruistic, just like another recent comment from Google about not stealing all of the talent in the world, but Jason Kottke (@kottke) has a different thought on why Google would be interested in accelerating page load speed.

From his post:

Google VP Marissa Mayer told the audience at the Web 2.0 conference that slowing a user's search experience down even a fraction of a second results in fewer searches and less customer satisfaction. Marissa ran an experiment where Google increased the number of search results to thirty. Traffic and revenue from Google searchers in the experimental group dropped by 20%. Ouch. Why? Why, when users had asked for this, did they seem to hate it? After a bit of looking, Marissa explained that they found an uncontrolled variable. The page with 10 results took .4 seconds to generate. The page with 30 results took .9 seconds. Half a second delay caused a 20% drop in traffic. Half a second delay killed user satisfaction.

Some lessons here:

  • Users say one thing and mean another so you have to understand latent/unspoken needs
  • Data is required to make strategic changes
  • Usability testing is fundamental to product success
  • Google's pretty smart (and so is Amazon, which is mentioned in the post as well)

There's a lot to like in such a short post. Full text can be found here.

Filed under  //   Google   datamining   innovation   strategy   usability  

Comments [2]