We're taking the rest of the year off...have a great holiday and new year. Check back in early January for a new post.
Lisa, Michael and the team at Cinterim.
Who we are...
December 23, 2008
December 15, 2008
Simplifying the Complex
Whether it is marketing or development, you gotta admit that tech companies and their teams struggle to simplify the experience and the message for their customers. Why is it that our DNA tells us that more is better?
Take the Chumby, for example. Ever heard of it? We heard about it over lunch with a PR maven back in the spring, but it never hit the radar until the other day. What is a Chumby? (We know you're dying to know!) New York Times technology editor, David Pogue, described it best. In his words, the Chumby = Alarm clock + Radio + Wi-Fi Internet + Digital picture frame + Gaming Console + Email terminal + Video player.
Business Week just published their 2008 Best and Worst. As suckers for such lists, we scanned the list and, lo and behold, the Chumby is sited as 2008's Most Disappointing Product. Ouch! Not a chummy report on the Chumby. In short, the review cited that the Chumby fell short on the user experience, calling the Chumby hard to use, with primitive technology and missing capabilities, like a battery, with a high price tag of $180.
Think about it: Does the target Chumby customer really need all those bells and whistles? And an Internet connection with a clock radio? Yet one more separate device to capture news? And Music? And email? Check out the website: It doesn't say, in any simple way, why the Chumby should my next device. Despite the fact that people like the tactile feel of the thing, the product it seems, and its marketing, are too complex. Simply put: Does the world really need a better alarm clock?
HELLO! It isn't about features. This is just one example of overly complex technology that falls short on delivering a compelling user experience. And after two years ion the market, the Chumby is now at the mercy of a tough economy.
Ever heard of MusicNet? We hadn't either. But if features were the ultimate win, then MusicNet, a 2002 online digital music service backed by several record labels, would have blazed the market and won instead of iTunes. However, even with all kinds of features and a low price: $10 a month for 100 streamed songs and 100 downloads. The experience fell short, considering downloaded songs expired after only 30 days and every song renewed counted against your allotment. (This kind of market disconnection is not surprising, considering the lack of customer focus the record labels have had in recent history. Check out our blog on the issue.) ITunes simplified access and the experience. And we all knew how that worked out.
(btw--MusicNet has since been purchased by a private equity group and recast as a back-end solution for consumer brands, all the way to delivering white-labeled digital music stores.)
Overall, the message is simple. Marketing and high-tech firms alike need to simplify the complex. Here are 3 simple steps to consider:
Nintendo reinvigorated their presence in the gaming market, not by trying to leapfrog with features like their competitors did, but by focusing instead on the experience and an under-served market that hadn't warmed up to video games. And we can attest after playing with our Wii consistently for the past couple of months that Nintendo simplified the complex and the result is sheer joy!
It's hard work to simplify the complex, but worth the trouble. Try it. Your customers will love you for it. And so will your CFO.
Lisa
Take the Chumby, for example. Ever heard of it? We heard about it over lunch with a PR maven back in the spring, but it never hit the radar until the other day. What is a Chumby? (We know you're dying to know!) New York Times technology editor, David Pogue, described it best. In his words, the Chumby = Alarm clock + Radio + Wi-Fi Internet + Digital picture frame + Gaming Console + Email terminal + Video player.
Think about it: Does the target Chumby customer really need all those bells and whistles? And an Internet connection with a clock radio? Yet one more separate device to capture news? And Music? And email? Check out the website: It doesn't say, in any simple way, why the Chumby should my next device. Despite the fact that people like the tactile feel of the thing, the product it seems, and its marketing, are too complex. Simply put: Does the world really need a better alarm clock?
HELLO! It isn't about features. This is just one example of overly complex technology that falls short on delivering a compelling user experience. And after two years ion the market, the Chumby is now at the mercy of a tough economy.
Ever heard of MusicNet? We hadn't either. But if features were the ultimate win, then MusicNet, a 2002 online digital music service backed by several record labels, would have blazed the market and won instead of iTunes. However, even with all kinds of features and a low price: $10 a month for 100 streamed songs and 100 downloads. The experience fell short, considering downloaded songs expired after only 30 days and every song renewed counted against your allotment. (This kind of market disconnection is not surprising, considering the lack of customer focus the record labels have had in recent history. Check out our blog on the issue.) ITunes simplified access and the experience. And we all knew how that worked out.
(btw--MusicNet has since been purchased by a private equity group and recast as a back-end solution for consumer brands, all the way to delivering white-labeled digital music stores.)
Overall, the message is simple. Marketing and high-tech firms alike need to simplify the complex. Here are 3 simple steps to consider:
- One of the hardest elements of simplifying the complex is making choices on what is most important to the target customer and what differentiates your product or service from everything else.
- Speak to their customer in their language, not yours.
- And finally, boil it down until it is so simple it is obvious.
Nintendo reinvigorated their presence in the gaming market, not by trying to leapfrog with features like their competitors did, but by focusing instead on the experience and an under-served market that hadn't warmed up to video games. And we can attest after playing with our Wii consistently for the past couple of months that Nintendo simplified the complex and the result is sheer joy!
It's hard work to simplify the complex, but worth the trouble. Try it. Your customers will love you for it. And so will your CFO.
Lisa
December 8, 2008
Profit vs. Innovation? Hmm.
It's been a long time coming, like the song says, and its been a long time gone. It, in this case, is our blog. And we apologize for the lag in postings. With our growing business and an economy "on the brink," we, like everyone else, have gotten mildly (!) distracted. Thank you all for your patience.
That said, one of the most important issues on every one's minds these days is the current and future state of the the automotive industry. Despite industry protestations, there seems to be little debate in the rest of the world that they brought this on themselves. The question, however is not if, but how. In a recent New York Times article, entitled At G.M., Innovation Sacrificed to Profits, the most telling comment came from General Motors board member, former Kodak CEO and Chairman, George M.C. Fisher.
"We were late on hybrids," Mr. Fisher is quoted as saying. "Why were we late? We made a business decision as opposed to a marketing decision. That's probably a mistake in retrospect." [emphasis added]
Wait a minute! Did he just that marketing isn't business? Hold that thought, because here's another one: As much as the article lambastes the the company for lack of vision, the story's headline implies, whether intentional or not, that profits and innovation are at odds. That's absurd. Nothing could be further from the truth. However, innovation usually means longer-term profits through fulfilling a business strategy. The real headline should read, "Innovation Sacrificed to Short-Term Profits."
So, if G.M.'s executive leadership team considers marketing as something separate from business, and has traded long term growth for short term transactions, what does that say about the company? Well, it tells us at Cinterim that General Motors, the quintessential American automotive company, is riddled with a fear of marketing. It's really not all that surprising in an industry that was birthed with Henry Ford's infamous comment, "I'll give them any color they want, so long as it's black." When get right down to it, after all, the auto industry is technology driven.
The importance of corporate culture in the fulfillment of business objectives has never been more apparent than it is today in the clear dysfunction within General Motors. In an industry that was built on making accessible a product that advanced consumer's lives; in an industry that was predicated on the assumption that accessibility was enough, there is no culture of listening to the voice of the customer. Listening to the customer is called marketing, which General Motors didn't consider a good business measure to make decisions. In light of Henry Ford's comment, it's a small step to see that the automotive industry has a historical "disaffiliation" with their customers. It has taken a century -- G.M.'s market share has slid consistently since the early 60s -- and an economic crisis to bring it to bear, but the results are clear. In this context, it is clear from Mr. Fisher's statement that G.M has pursued short-term profits at the expense of long term business objectives.
This is what we call a marketing dysfunction. The tell tale signs? Shutting down the voice of the market, in this case the car buying consumer; innovating features instead of products. How many different ways can you make a heater function, or make headlights or a radio work? And then there the issue of fuel economy: 35 years have passed, 3-1/2 decades since the first gas crisis erupted in 1973. It seems to us that there was more than sufficient time between then and now to build fuel-efficient engines. It's our belief that these issues are based in the disconnection the company has with it's customers. But this marketing dysfunction is not happening within the marketing discipline. It's a dysfunctional relationship within technology companies. Separating out marketing from business is ludicrous: Marketing is business. In fact, what Mr. Fisher admitted was that the company simply didn't see the need to listen to the voice of its customer. Now General Motors, and the industry as a whole, is paying the price and dragging the rest of us in its wake.
At his first appearance before congress several weeks ago, G.M. CEO Rick Wagoner said, "What exposes us to failure now is not our product lineup, or our business strategy, or our long-term strategy." He blamed it solely on the economy. Without a doubt, the economy is playing a key role here. But G.M. has been losing market share for over 40 years. Mr. Wagoner returned to Congress last week, hat in hand, promising innovation. From the sounds of it, he's talking about innovating process and streamlining the company, both of which are sorely needed. Other than pairing down product lines, there doesn't seem to be much talk about innovating new products that customers crave! (Remember the customer, Rick?)
The thing about the fear of marketing is that it is myopic. Those that have it are inherently focused inward, not on the customer. If G.M. doesn't heed the voice of its buyers, then any bailout is only slowing down the company's eventual demise. In this economy, or any other, General Motors needs to face and eradicate its fear of marketing, reinvent its process and culture and, in doing so, reinvent its business.
That's our opinion. What do you think?
That said, one of the most important issues on every one's minds these days is the current and future state of the the automotive industry. Despite industry protestations, there seems to be little debate in the rest of the world that they brought this on themselves. The question, however is not if, but how. In a recent New York Times article, entitled At G.M., Innovation Sacrificed to Profits, the most telling comment came from General Motors board member, former Kodak CEO and Chairman, George M.C. Fisher.
"We were late on hybrids," Mr. Fisher is quoted as saying. "Why were we late? We made a business decision as opposed to a marketing decision. That's probably a mistake in retrospect." [emphasis added]
Wait a minute! Did he just that marketing isn't business? Hold that thought, because here's another one: As much as the article lambastes the the company for lack of vision, the story's headline implies, whether intentional or not, that profits and innovation are at odds. That's absurd. Nothing could be further from the truth. However, innovation usually means longer-term profits through fulfilling a business strategy. The real headline should read, "Innovation Sacrificed to Short-Term Profits."
So, if G.M.'s executive leadership team considers marketing as something separate from business, and has traded long term growth for short term transactions, what does that say about the company? Well, it tells us at Cinterim that General Motors, the quintessential American automotive company, is riddled with a fear of marketing. It's really not all that surprising in an industry that was birthed with Henry Ford's infamous comment, "I'll give them any color they want, so long as it's black." When get right down to it, after all, the auto industry is technology driven.
The importance of corporate culture in the fulfillment of business objectives has never been more apparent than it is today in the clear dysfunction within General Motors. In an industry that was built on making accessible a product that advanced consumer's lives; in an industry that was predicated on the assumption that accessibility was enough, there is no culture of listening to the voice of the customer. Listening to the customer is called marketing, which General Motors didn't consider a good business measure to make decisions. In light of Henry Ford's comment, it's a small step to see that the automotive industry has a historical "disaffiliation" with their customers. It has taken a century -- G.M.'s market share has slid consistently since the early 60s -- and an economic crisis to bring it to bear, but the results are clear. In this context, it is clear from Mr. Fisher's statement that G.M has pursued short-term profits at the expense of long term business objectives.
This is what we call a marketing dysfunction. The tell tale signs? Shutting down the voice of the market, in this case the car buying consumer; innovating features instead of products. How many different ways can you make a heater function, or make headlights or a radio work? And then there the issue of fuel economy: 35 years have passed, 3-1/2 decades since the first gas crisis erupted in 1973. It seems to us that there was more than sufficient time between then and now to build fuel-efficient engines. It's our belief that these issues are based in the disconnection the company has with it's customers. But this marketing dysfunction is not happening within the marketing discipline. It's a dysfunctional relationship within technology companies. Separating out marketing from business is ludicrous: Marketing is business. In fact, what Mr. Fisher admitted was that the company simply didn't see the need to listen to the voice of its customer. Now General Motors, and the industry as a whole, is paying the price and dragging the rest of us in its wake.
At his first appearance before congress several weeks ago, G.M. CEO Rick Wagoner said, "What exposes us to failure now is not our product lineup, or our business strategy, or our long-term strategy." He blamed it solely on the economy. Without a doubt, the economy is playing a key role here. But G.M. has been losing market share for over 40 years. Mr. Wagoner returned to Congress last week, hat in hand, promising innovation. From the sounds of it, he's talking about innovating process and streamlining the company, both of which are sorely needed. Other than pairing down product lines, there doesn't seem to be much talk about innovating new products that customers crave! (Remember the customer, Rick?)
The thing about the fear of marketing is that it is myopic. Those that have it are inherently focused inward, not on the customer. If G.M. doesn't heed the voice of its buyers, then any bailout is only slowing down the company's eventual demise. In this economy, or any other, General Motors needs to face and eradicate its fear of marketing, reinvent its process and culture and, in doing so, reinvent its business.
That's our opinion. What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)