Get Fresh Minds

The perils of selling a product instead of a result.

Here's a worldwide tale....

When I was living in northern Germany last fall, the often-rainy weather meant that my sneakers just weren't going to cut it anymore.

So finally, I did the inevitable: I bought a pair of winter boots.  They're waterproofed leather with a rubber sole and fleece lining, so they're perfect for Minnesota as well.  They're not too pretty, but I usually stop caring about that when my toes are freezing.

When I was just about to pay, however, the saleswoman trotted out the dreaded question: "Do you want to buy a protection spray to keep your boots in tip-top shape?"

This question always raises red flags for me because it pulls at my deepest fears.  Obviously, I'm worried about destroying my shoes.  I just bought a nice pair that I want to use for years to come--and I'm an expert at finding mud puddles, scuffing toes, and walking on sharp things.

Then there's also the horrid moment of thinking "Haven't I heard this question before?"

And then I need to sit there, wracking my brain to see if I bought shoe protection last time, if I still have it, if there's any left, and (of course) if I'll be able to find it.

In the end, I say "Just the shoes, please."

Then I go home and spend the next hour looking through my basement, and calling friends to see if anyone has a bottle.  They're sure they do, of course--but no one really knows where it is.

A week after this original excursion, I went shopping with a friend to help him find a nice new pair of leather shoes.  We talk about the shoe protection spray and decide to buy a bottle to share. 

Except... don't his parents have some?  Probably... right?

Again, we walk away without buying the shoe protection.  Even though both of us wanted it.

Anyone else do that too?

So, here's a thought?  What if shoe stores stopped selling the product, and started selling the protection?

Think about it.  You've just bought a brand new pair of shoes and at the register, the salesperson asks "Would you like me to weatherproof your shoes for $3 more?  It will help keep the leather in good shape and you'll be able to brush dirt right off.  I can do it right now and your shoes will be ready to wear in two minutes."

Doesn't that sound nice?   Instead of a whole bottle-buying production (paying $10 btw for a bottle you'll probably lose) and the necessity of doing it yourself, you get instant gratification and shoes that are ready to hit the streets right away.

And this is a great deal for the store too.  Shoe protection sprays are a big money-maker, but they're not too expensive for the store to buy.  Since a bottle probably can protect at least 6 pairs of shoes, the store would "sell" each bottle for about $18 instead of $10.

Plus, the store could even buy bigger bottles and get an even-better price.

But the most important thing is that customers won't have to face that big moment of doubt and forgetfulness.

I didn't buy the bottle of protecting spray for my shoes.

On the other hand, I would happily have paid for my shoes to be protected from the elements.

It was the focus on buying the product that lost the sale.  If they had sold the result, I'd be a customer.

How often do you take the road most traveled?

It's car buying season in my family right now.  My poor old car is limping along on its last legs, and my mother's car was recently brutally murdered by a brilliant 16 year old who decided the best way to kill a scary, scary spider was to crush it at about 35 miles per hour between the car he was driving and a car legally parked on the side of the road.

(I'm a little bitter about that one, since I was borrowing it at the time, wasn't anywhere near the car when it happened and actually found out when my father called to say the police were looking for me!  Plus, I had just filled up the gas tank.)

Car buying season in my family means one thing: hours spent scouring through used car lots to find the perfect car... which will turn out to be a mid-to-late-90s Nissan Maxima.

How do I know that's how the search will end?

Because three of the four three cars we've bought have been Nissan Maximas.  We have it in white and burgundy, and the murdered car was champagne-colored.  The newest car is a Nissan Altima - which my father decided to buy because:

"In 2004, the body of the Maxima was enlarged to compete against the Lexus, and as a result, the Altima - which was smaller - became the size of the Maxima."

(Basically, it's as close to a Maxima as my father could find.)

But why do we keep buying the same car?  It's not because we're trying for a matched set - it's because my father knew how to fix the mid-90s Nissan Maxima, and he figures it's just easier to keep buying the same car than learn how to fix a new model!

(--> That is not our car, but it probably would be if it were for sale.)

Does that sound familiar?  Anyone else know someone who keeps going on the same path because they already know the way?  Anyone guilty of that themselves?

I definitely can't beg innocent... I've taken the road most traveled many, many times.  I am especially guilty of:

• Buying the same brand of jeans over and over again because they "fit" and I can just grab them off the shelf in my size.
• Making chili exactly like my mother made it because I know how it tastes.
• Bringing home bottle openers as souvenirs for my little brother and glass earrings for my mother because I know they'll be well-received (and used.)

No sense doing something different when the past solution has worked so well before!  Right?

I think that's one of the reasons it's so easy to get stuck in a certain way of thinking.  We're so accustomed to taking the "road most traveled" that it can be hard (and scary) to do something different.

 

Kudos go to....

  August is over, and it's time to report the winner of Kudos for the month!

(I know, it's late, but I've been traveling and am away from my stash of kudos.)

Drumroll please...  August Kudos goes to John, who wrote:

Thinking of comments to add to a blog can be a creativity challenge in itself! Why not structure the comments in some way? Maybe the comments area of the blog could function as a kind of forum in itself that aims to encourage brainstorming. For example, on discussions about ideas you could apply six thinking hats, or ask for further ideas and ask for bizarre ideas (to act as provocations) or ideas based on random words you give.

As John suggested, I'm going be doing some more structured comment requests this month... because there's a contest coming up!

Thanks very much to John and everyone else who left a comment for Kudos this month:

Phil Gerbyshak Celia Beth Robinson Frank Calberg Paul Sloane Jared Tobias Andy Paul Isakson Julie Coffin

Kare Anderson Quasar9 Luc Debaisieux yuanyu Brad Shorr Roger von Oech Lee Iain Hamp Jeff De Cagna

John will be getting his Kudos in the mail as soon as I get back home.

If you'd like to win Kudos for September, join in with your comments!  The contest is open until Tuesday, September 30th.

Start first, and don't let anyone pass you.

On Monday, I wrote that it's more important to be first than to have the best-designed product out there.  It was a controversial stand to take, and, as I hoped, a couple others wrote in to share their view on the subject.

Since they make really good points, I want to make sure that everyone else reads what they have to say. (Bold emphasis is mine)

Surinder, from ResearchTalk writes:

Really?

- Many people think Volvo created the airbag, but in fact Audi did.

- Google was late to the search game (and yet has grown faster than any company in history).

I think it takes a combination of first mover advantage as you suggest, but also continuous innovation to meet an audacious goal (everyone, but Google thought Alta Vista was a good as search could get), and effective marketing (Volvo persuaded the world they were synonymous with safety).

If an initial innovation is crap, you need to earn the right to have someone spend the time to revisit a later version. The early version of the LastMinute.com website was poor, but it was novel enough that people kept returning, during which time they improved it sufficiently. Google Reader went through a similar experience.

If you release early and don't innovate, you can soon be as good as dead - look at the performance of Friendster, Friends Reunited and Facebook.

As Phil Darby from The Full Blog, explained further:

The business world is littered with businesses who failed to leverage ideas that others later made "their own".  Microsoft aren't pioneers for instance, but have achieved omnipotence by putting their resources behind ideas that others have come up with, but have failed to exploit.

Those are both very smart observations.  In the long run, it is not enough to be first to market. 

You have to be able to maintain a competitive advantage by continuing to innovate and staying on top of the competition.

The facts are:

• Any company that forgets or neglects the need for continuous innovation is choosing to be vulnerable.
  
• In the same sense, any company that goes to market with a flawed or unfinished offering is also choosing to be vulnerable.

So, being first to market is obviously not a free pass to instant success.  You do need to have a quality offering that people actually want.  And you can't just sit back and relax once you have gotten their interest - because there will always be someone else right behind you.

However, if you can successfully achieve first mover advantage and get the name recognition, you are in a stronger position to maintain your status as the market leader.

That's why I say it's more important to be first than perfect.

Be first, or be forgotten.

In the world of innovation, precision always loses out to speed.

People always remember who was first: Neil Armstrong, Secretariat (above), John Hancock.

But just try asking people who was the second person to step onto the moon, or which racehorse placed second in the 1973 Kentucky Derby, or who was the second person to sign America’s Declaration of Independence.*

It’s the same with new products and services. Being the first to market allows a company to define their niche in the minds of customers. Waiting to launch until perfection is achieved can cause a company to miss that all-important chance to be the one everyone else is evaluated against.

In some cases, the first product to go successfully to market can even create the vocabulary people use to refer to all products in that niche. People “Xerox” their documents, they blow their noses on “Kleenex” and when they need to write a short note that can be easily removed, they use a “Post-it”.

There are now many producers of copy machines, face tissues and sticky notes, but the first brands still stick in the minds of consumers.  Even though they may not be perfect, the winners are almost always the ones that distinguish themselves first.

* Buzz Aldrin, Sham and someone so unacknowledged that I can't even find their name!