Improve, Replace or Retire it

Did you ever notice that many of today's problems, issues, and poor performers may have been great or at least decent solutions once upon a time, but today somehow, they just don’t seem to work so well? Previously great or good enough can turn into currently poor. Just as people need to refresh and retrain, products also need to be improved to remain relevant and have a chance at continuing to be great.

Perhaps coworkers or a supplier assures you that the product was once great, so why mess with something that’s not broken? Perhaps you used a leather article that wasn’t ideal or dealt with a tannery with late deliveries or quality problems. It was a small manageable problem in the past…so you kept going with it due to limited resources or you just ran out of time and chose to work on bigger issues.

So now it's back and it's a bit worse this time...perhaps much worse.  

Once great, now just OK... but not poor enough to be an easy drop. Some would say its easy money, it’s selling, but is it converting enough customers into sales, or are you losing sales because you continue to hold onto an old style that is no longer great by today's standards?

It could be a part of the product. Seemingly small issues that don't seem to be central to the product are easy to put aside as not worth the time investment to optimize. ...after all, why focus on issues that will give incremental gains, versus focusing on obviously bigger opportunities, right? Perhaps the product is too heavy, and you’ve not lightened it but the competition has caught up and now theirs is lighter and better than your product. Your customer will know once she tries on both.

All elements of a product are interconnected components in an assembly. When taken all together, it creates one product experience. The weakness of any one piece reduces the effectiveness of the whole system. True some parts are more instrumental than others (a last versus an aglet) but it pays to approach each component with the same rigor to eliminate weak links and to establish a consistency of design intent, performance, and quality in the finished product. This creates a great product and affirms what the brand is all about.

Other times, its simply time to retire the product and replace it with a much better product in every way, one that leaps over competitors causing them to scramble to catch up. Be assured that if you don’t proactively improve or replace those that have fallen behind, your competitors will replace it for you with their own improved products.

Put the money where it counts

When developing a product, we look at the COGS (Cost of Goods Sold) to discover if our costs are on track and why the product costs what it does.

Sure, it’s easy to look at the highest cost items on the list and declare that we have to get that cost down, but think again. Are you falling prey to the race to the bottom trap? Cost reducing to compete on price? Emotional buy-in from your manager? Take the cost out of the wrong components and are you now eliminating your key benefits over competing products?

Value does not mean low price. Value means the product offers something other products do not, or perhaps the product does something others do as well, but your product does it better.

It takes guts and marketing acumen to take the right road in order to reach the right customers, your target group that will appreciate the fact that you didn’t strip out the most important product features and benefits.

This is not to say that cost is not important, nothing could be further than the truth, but taking the position that the footbed in the shoe is too expensive, for example, so we have to get a cheaper less comfortable footbed, is counter-productive if the shoe brand is a comfort shoe brand competing on comfort in a market with similarly styled and priced shoes.

Of course, don’t overpay for the right footbed, and make sure that footbed really is the right one so you’re putting your money where it counts. Why not piece the upper, or use a less expensive breathable lining, or choose from any number of other opportunities to lower your cost instead?

If the item improves the product in a way that is meaningful to the brand and to the customer, then the item is an Asset. If not, it’s a cost that’s ready to be reduced. Be thoughtful about where the money is going and put it where it counts.

US media fails to elect Hillary over Trump

I don't typically write about politics, but with such a juicy election I just could not resist. If you're reading for perspectives on brands, products, and customers I promise its in there. 

Last week’s US election was a gotcha. The media got it all wrong, or perhaps we missed the point entirely. Clearly media channels have motives, agendas and a lot of control. We used to call them the news…now they are anchors and commentators. Anchors as in a lead weight, a mass holding a vessel in place, not changing the view, holding hostage unsuspecting masses of viewers with a sinister plot to not report on events in a fair handed neutral voice, but to construct a story with one purpose in mind - to influence. They are commentators, which means they have a mouth and a microphone and now an alibi when their soapbox becomes too visible and the veil of “news” and real reporting fades away.

Did Trump win because voters that connected with Trump + voters that hated Hillary won more state electors than voters that connected with Hillary and hated Trump? Or perhaps Trump’s appeal to fear was more motivating to voters than Hillary’s appeal to hope. Obama used hope and he aced it. He seemed authentic, and consumers bought (voters voted). Hillary, turns out, is no Obama.  Is the US ready for a female president? Of course, we are, but not if that’s the best reason you can come up with. This is the equivalent of a brand falling in love with one of their features and convincing themselves that this is the most important feature to their customers.

This nation’s citizens don't trust the government and Hillary was part of the government, a continuation of more of the same. Consumer sentiment was against what she represented. The trend was not in her favor. Bernie was Trump on the other side. Even though he’s a politician, he was a harsh critic of the system, an outsider, a spokesperson for the little guy, the middle of America, the forgotten people who struggle every day. Sounds like we’re describing Trump... anti-status quo, need for change, the forgotten men and women of the US. If Trump was running as a Democrat, and Bernie chose the Republican party, would we have voted in a President Bernie Sanders? 

Did Trump just understand the plight of the forgotten men and women in the middle of America and he connected with them stronger than Hillary’s appeal? Did we confuse Trump’s message as Trump’s when the message reflects half of the citizens of the US? Did we confuse the media’s message as neutral and real?  Did the media think they could destroy Trump by pointing out his shortcomings, when in fact he was just the mouthpiece of half of the country and going after Trump made no difference, because we all look past character flaws and comments made once upon a time, when the flip side is a candidate that speaks to our human condition. Both Hillary and Trump were chock full of issues and flaws but they were not strong enough to overcome the positive connections.

So then what was the bigger surprise? That the media wasn’t ever reporting in a neutral and balanced manner? Isn’t selective reporting, including omitting relevant data points with the intent to not portray an issue fairly, the equivalent of lying?  Or is the biggest surprise that all citizens of the US don’t agree on all issues? That can’t be it. It looks pretty bad on the outside, but then again, the media is reporting on it, so should we expect any different and can we really believe it?

Whether you like or love Hillary or Trump, the entire country lost an important facet of our strength, and that is a neutral and non-partisan media channel…there goes the watchdog. Perhaps we might be naive to think they were ever neutral… let’s face it, we are not gods or superheroes but merely human with motives and intentions and want to see our favorite team win.

But we lost on another front, and that’s with hidden 3rd and 4th party candidates Gary Johnson and Jill Stein. Regardless of who your favorite candidate was, we know from history that monopolies and duopolies don’t best serve the needs of markets and customers. The US sorely needs a third political party to break the cycle of bad versus worse. Choosing the lesser of evils is hardly ideal – we deserve better. A third player will force the two major parties to improve, to be better or they will fall to the wayside and a new, better product, I mean a better political party will emerge. 

Funny how the media was so focused the few weeks leading up to the election on Trump’s non-commitment to concede the election. They counted their chickens all right, and it has been over a week after the election and the media still hasn’t conceded the Trump victory. Is this the irony of their destiny? Instant karma? They made their bed and now they must sleep in it. They need to take their own advice...peaceful transition…if they truly are working for a noble betterment of society, if that is what they tell themselves when they lay down at night, then they would indeed have a different message during this transition. Let’s all hope we can trust the news to be fair with all sides represented accurately without their own activist agendas polluting the message, but until then, at least we have the internet and our own intelligence to spot activism and agenda when masked as reporting. 

The vital few at the center of the universe

Product development is a delicate balancing act that needs to reflect and balance the needs of the vital few, thoughtfully and thoroughly. There’s no single right answer as to what’s best for a particular product in terms of its mix of traits or styling cues. To make matters more complicated, the competitive landscape is ever-changing and internal (corporate/client/brand) needs can be a moving target as well.

Fortunately, there are many good solutions for all opportunities and problems, but only a few great ones. So then, how to choose the great ones and set aside the rest? Identify the main participants in the business, uncover their challenges, needs and wants and the rest becomes clear.  

Start by putting the vital few users at the center of the universe and then developing solutions that serve their needs the best within time, cost and other constraints.

So then, who are the vital few?

…this could include end customers, buyers, the company, the factory, the delivery person, the maintenance technician, and anyone else who comes into contact with the product. In the case of shoes, there are three:

1) the consumer / end-user who wears the shoes (the customer is always first) 

2) the company (client, brand) that is commissioning the work to be done. and

3) manufacturing: the network of factories and suppliers that makes the shoes

These three groups live at the center of the shoe universe. Take care of these three players and others’ needs are typically addresses as well.

For example, environmental issues are addressed within the client/brand and factory/manufacturing pieces. Investor needs are addressed withing the client and consumer piece.

Thinking of this in an easy to utter phrase helps to keep this concept at the forefront:  each shoe has to deliver a high level of delight and functionality to the customer while being manufacturable for the factory and profitable for the company...hmm, not as easy to say as I had hoped...delight the customer, factory and the company with a wow, high-quality and profitable product that will have a positive effect on all. 

Poor choices can now be easily eliminated enabling the best path forward to come into focus.