Green Room

How you name your innovation

I thought that this article in the NYT offered some interesting examples of how we can approach the problem of where to position our new ideas amongst the understood and existing landscape of products and objects.


It’s Brand New, but Make It Sound Familiar


By MARY TRIPSAS
Published: October 3, 2009

GLANCE through a photo album of early automobiles and you’ll find an eclectic assortment of vehicles, including three-wheeled machines and bicycle-like contraptions. You’d be hard-pressed to identify many as cars.

Early consumers were confused, too, until innovators finally converged on a carriage-like design and coined the term “horseless carriage” in the 1890s, giving a clear point of comparison. More than 100 years later, we can learn from their example.

Humans instinctively sort and classify things. It’s how we make sense of a complex world.

So when companies develop innovative products and services that don’t obviously fit into established categories, managers need to help people understand what comparison to make. Without that step, potential customers might just walk away wondering, “What is it?”

As a starting point, it helps to understand some basic traits of behavior. When people encounter something they don’t recognize, they make sense of it by associating it with something familiar.

“What category you place something in has a huge influence on how you view its basic properties,” says Arthur Markman, a professor of psychology at the University of Texas in Austin. “The category signals not only a set of features to expect, but at a more basic level, when and how you should use the novel item.”

And depending upon what cues they are given, people will place the same item in different categories.

In management, these traits imply that companies can benefit by using comparisons to create expectations that best match an innovation’s strengths.

For instance, Tap ’n Tap, a start-up based in Cambridge, Mass., has developed a touchscreen device that combines multiple household applications including communications (e-mail, chat), Web-based information access (weather, news), household management (family calendars) and entertainment (videos, e-books).

Javier Segovia, Tap ’n Tap’s founder, says he doesn’t want to emphasize the device’s similarity to a laptop because he views his product as more convenient, intuitive and fun. A label like “a digital picture frame on steroids” might set expectations too low, he said. The closest analogy he could come up with was a mobile Internet device like a smartphone, but for the home. So he called it a “home Internet device.”

Problems can arise if consumers can’t place innovations into familiar categories. Consider the introduction of the Segway, the high-tech motorized scooter, Professor Markman said. “Nobody was quite sure what it was,” he said. “There was no clear analogy, so people had no idea how to use it.”

Eric Fleming, Segway’s marketing director, acknowledges that the company had problems positioning the product. “Our early model was called the i167,” he said. “I worked here for two years and didn’t know why that was. It had something to do with the battery. Our goal now is to help people figure out how this thing fits into their lives.”

Segway has created separate models with labels like the i2 Commuter, i2 Cargo and x2 Golf, Mr. Fleming said, and has added a compatibility test to its Web site to help consumers understand what application best suits them.

The importance of linking an innovation to something familiar applies to services, too. The availability of very light jets prompted Bill Herp, an entrepreneur, to found Linear Air, based at a regional airport near Boston. His company offers custom-scheduled flights that let people avoid the hassles of commercial travel for less than a larger business jet or charter would cost.

But “it’s hard for people to understand what our service is about,” Mr. Herp said. So he describes it as “Boston Coach with wings,” after a local private car service. “This gets at the essence of what we do much more so than other labels like ‘on-demand charters’ or even ‘air taxis,’” he said.

Boston Coach caters to business travelers, he said, and creates expectations of efficient, consistent and convenient travel.

Finding the right label is only one of the many ways organizations can influence the way consumers categorize a product. They can also experiment with the product’s shape, packaging, pricing and retail store placement.

Lexar Media, a digital photography start-up founded in 1996, sold memory cards. It seems almost unbelievable today, but back then most cameras used film and people didn’t understand how digital cameras worked. So Lexar Media used a variety of signals to persuade early adopters, especially professional photographers, to classify the memory cards that store pictures as similar to the silver halide film used in analog cameras.

Lexar Media’s product was put in gold packaging similar to the color of Kodak’s film cartridges, given a speed rating to create an analogy to ISO ratings, labeled as “digital film” on the package and in advertising, and placed in the camera section of retail stores.

Sony, by contrast, promoted a competing categorization, labeling its cards “Memory Stick” and advocating their use for many of the company’s consumer electronics devices, including digital music players, handhelds and digital camcorders. Other companies also adopted this broader memory classification, so Lexar Media’s success in establishing memory cards as analogous to film was short-lived, and the company stopped promoting the cards as digital film.

AS innovative products are introduced, category boundaries are continually shifting and new categories emerging. In some ways, the auto industry is going through a transformation that harks back to the 1800s. Today’s consumers are confronted with an impressive assortment of new vehicles, including electric models with three wheels and others with designs that just don’t look like what we expect a car to look like.

Will electric vehicles be broadly accepted? And which models will be most popular? The answers may well depend on the associations that automakers try to imprint on consumers.

Carbon-free chariot, anyone?

October 04, 2009 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Signals Seen in the Netflix Win....

The paragraph below is taken from the NYT and their article today about the winners of the Netflix contest.  For those of you who do not know about this contest.  Netflix created a contest in 2006 offering $1 million to any person or team who could develop an algorithm that would improve on the Netflix  recommendation results by 10%.  Essentially, if you can give us something that works at least 10% better than what we have, we'll pay you a million bucks.

From the NYT
The Netflix Prize contest has been hailed as prime example of “prize economics” and the crowdsourcing of innovation. Prize economics refers to running a contest to generate a new innovation at less cost than an in-house research and development effort, and crowd-sourcing refers to using the proverbial wisdom of crowds to accomplish a task. Netflix has said that $1 million would be a bargain price for an improved recommendation engine, which would increase customer satisfaction and generate more movie rental business.

So what does this mean?  

#1 Netflix Got a Bargain
Netflix got loads of high level and professional engineers to work on their problem for FREE as a result of promising the winner $1 million.

This $1 million is likely equivalent to paying only 10-15 of these engineers their annual salaries.

If Netflix had tried to solve this problem by hiring an internal team, they might have hired the wrong people and, over a two year period the internal department would have likely cost more than $1 million without necessarily being sure that they would have succeeded in their goal.

Also, there is nothing in this deal saying that Netflix can not purchase algorithm's that improve their searches by, say, 8% for far less than $1 million.  As all these engineers handed in their homework over the last two years, surely Netflix got some accidental gems handed to them on silver platters that they could pay for outside the bounds of the contest. 

#2 There is a Serious Shift in HR under this model
With this model of development, it was the "workers" who identified what & who they needed to succeed. There was no HR department that culled resumes;no department head that matched engineers with statisticians.  They found and selected each other.  Is this an indicator that the innovation team is best qualified to see what skills are missing for a particular objective?

#3 Each member of this team is an Entrepreneur
We have all been talking forever now about the information age facilitating individual workers, globalization allowing collaboration around the planet.  People exercising greater personal ownership over their skills and abilities as opposed to promising those skills to an employer and applying them as directed by others.  Perhaps this is a signpost on this road towards more entreprenurailism and less corporate domination over innovation?  hmmmmmm

#4 The problem required Teamwork
Before any proclamations are made about the lone wolf triumphing over corporate herds.....these guys did need to collaborate.  The problem required a team to be solved and even those who take ownership of their skills and work as entrepreneurs, still can not run with scissors and still need to put the cap back on the paste when they are done.  Many of these people met each other through or as a result of the contest itself.  Therefore Netflix still facilitated in bringing the team together, not through employment or a skilled HR manager, but by putting out the bait and letting the best people mingle and meet each other at the top of the pyramid.  So who built/assembled this team?  The individuals did it themselves...but they never would have met without the contest. 

#5 What works for algorithms would not work for toaster ovens.
This kind of contest is a really interesting model.  But it does not quite work the same way for object or product design as it does for algorithms.  The cost ratio of algorithm implementation and testing compared to the development cost is minuscule.   It is absolutely and empirically possible to test an algorithm's's effectiveness without implementing it in the marketplace.  It is not possible to know that you have a kick ass toaster design until you have sourced it, made it, bought it, shipped it, and put it on store shelves and tested it with consumers.  Unlike computing, the costs of production & distribution for products is often greater than the costs of innovation.  Netflix was able to be certain that they were buying a 10.05% improvement before they paid.  It is very difficult for Black and Decker to know what kind of improvement a particular drill design will have over their current sales.

So what does this all mean? No idea....not really.  I think Netflix is brilliant to have created the contest and congratulations to the winning team.   As an entrepreneur, I am heartened by the way individuals came together to collaborate on the problem, managed themselves, and succeeded.








June 27, 2009 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Design for Everyone

Quote taken from today's NYT in an article about government innovation policy in different countries.  Mr. Mashelkar represented India and pointed to the Nano automobile and low cost pharmaceuticals as the results of their philosophy:

“If you make something for the rich, the poor cannot afford it,” Mr. Mashelkar said. “But if you design for the poor, everyone can afford it.”

"Everyone" is a much bigger market than just the wealthy......

June 21, 2009 | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Easiest Place to Change Direction......

In the design process, I find myself wanting to take a pause and/or a rethink as many times as possible in the first stages of design.  When we are at the sketching stage....there is no other place in the process where throwing out everything and starting again has lower costs.  Once you have CADed up the idea...you have invested many hours and that makes you a wee little tiny bit reluctant to start again.  Once there are prototypes, the client will be less than thrilled to hear that all the time and material expenses so far were for naught.  Once the factories have begun quoting or packaging has been designed, even more costly in lost time, misspent money, and eroding client confidence.... At the first stages of ideation, when only a quick sketch has been put up on the board....this is when change is the least expensive.  When we try to push for as many variations and explorations as possible.  When we force ourselves to consider scrapping it all and starting again.  There are more than one example when a good idea has been upgraded to a GREAT idea with very little additional costs for us or our clients.  The cheapest place to realize that you shoudl alter your direction is at the very begining.

May 19, 2009 | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Story of Stuff

Not only do I think this 20 minute educational video is interesting to watch, but I love that they offered it for free on their website and posted it to YouTube. Schoolteachers just started pulling it for free and using it as part of their curriculum. It became a huge hit and reached a massive audience because they chose to make it easy to access. Youtube link below the image.
http://www.gabriolaproperty.com/blog/uploaded_images/Stuff-Story-710283.png

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLBE5QAYXp8&feature=fvst

May 14, 2009 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Clever Story About Responding to a Price Cutting Competitor.

I saw this today as part of a NYT article. It struck me as a cute story and maybe it would help some of us persuade a client or even remind ourselves that we don't always have to cut costs as a response to competitors who drop prices. Anyway, food for thought......

Quote:

The store is about a neighborhood barber whose livelihood is threatened by the arrival of a chain offering $5 haircuts.

The barber “hires a marketing consultant,” he added, “who hangs a banner above the shop, ‘We fix $5 haircuts.’ ”

The moral is “don’t go down that road of discounting yourself into being considered a commodity. It’s damaging to your brand to train consumers to expect a sale every day.”

May 11, 2009 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Worth your time and money...

"These days it's important that all your purchases be worth your time and money. Everything should be meaningful to you, high quality and well-made. Everything in between seems unnecessary."

I really liked this quote from the fashion designers behind "obedient sons & daughters". It was part of a JC Report interview with the couple.  I had never heard of them before, but the idea echoes the shopping philosophy of my long time best friend....."only the things I absolutely LOVE" that is all she will buy.  After years of practise, her home is filled with objects all of which bring her great joy and have a special spark to them.

We are much more aware of people who waste our time......but worth keeping an eye out for objects and purchases that essentially do the same.

June 05, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (1)

I clipped this partial interview with Garth Roberts from Design Sponge.   My 2cents below......

PICT0066adjlres

If you could do it all over again, the one thing you wouldn't change.

Leaving Canada. Canada doesn’t support its design community [...this is not said relative to the support received by designers in the Netherlands, France or the UK…], meaning Canada really doesn’t value design’s contribution to Canadian society. This is reflected in the almost mute design culture of Canada. I am glad that I had the courage and was encouraged to expand my context of the world and humanity. Whether I had been a designer or an investment banker, this would have been, and is, of the utmost importance to my development as a person.

Adrienne: Getting into a huff and listing off all the great design that comes from Canada is not likely to achieve much, and really who cares if this Garth guy is glad he left.  But I still can not resist responding in some way..... My personal opinion is that Canadian design style can be harder to detect than say "Italian Style" or "New York Style"....mostly because Canadian design is rarely done for its own greater glory....instead it is often a quiet and respectful celebration of materials, an appreciation for the audience, a thoughtful and considerate development of an idea. Canada is not the place to go to become world famous.....but since when is the success of a design anchored in its fame?   

November 14, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (0)

I connot begin to describe how much admiration I have for the designers who created this.  Creating a new and improved alternative to items that are universally accepted requires a vision of what could be....  I found this post at Cool Hunting. 

Hurriquakenail

the Hurriquake, is a tricked-out nail designed to protect homes against damage caused by hurricanes and earthquakes. Engineered to target the common problems of other fasteners that tear apart in high winds and pull through plywood during seismic stresses, the device reportedly provides up to twice the resistance to these natural disasters. Featuring a larger head (with easily identifiable markings for inspectors, homeowners and contractors), angled barbed rings at the bottom, a screw shank that fills voids created the rings, and "shear shank technology" that increases strength at primary stress point and an improved coating that allows nails to be more flush with wood, the increased cost in building an average-size house is a mere $15.

November 13, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Really Tough Terrain

As part of a conversation today about unique and fabulous Halloween costumes, we found ourselves bemoaning how treacherous it is to try and develop and launch new products that are neither luxury items, nor mass merchant discount priced products.   Mass production and mass distribution require a reliable belief that consumers will trade their hard earned cash for the goods.  The public rewards lower priced goods so often, that you really are asking a retail buyer to go out on a limb to take on an item or items that are more expensive.... and not many will risk their jobs on an unproven idea.   

The middle ground of product pricing is some pretty tough terrain......

November 01, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Next »

Recent Posts

  • How you name your innovation
  • Signals Seen in the Netflix Win....
  • Design for Everyone
  • The Easiest Place to Change Direction......
  • The Story of Stuff
  • Clever Story About Responding to a Price Cutting Competitor.
  • Worth your time and money...
  • I clipped this partial interview
  • I connot begin to describe
  • Really Tough Terrain
Subscribe to this blog's feed
Add me to your TypePad People list