Comments [0]
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.
Comments [0]
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.
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.
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?
Comments [0]
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."
Comments [0]
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
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."
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.
Comments [0]
"..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."
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.
Comments [1]
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:
There's a lot to like in such a short post. Full text can be found here.
Comments [2]
Comments [0]