My Photo

Ashton Udall

  • The game of taking products to market is rapidly changing for the better. Companies, organizations, and individuals, are reaching out to partners across the world to develop, manufacture, and market their products. This blog is about building your products, building your business, and building the Global Economy.

Global Sourcing Specialists

  • Ashton Udall is a partner with the firm Global Sourcing Specialists (GSS). GSS is a product development and sourcing (manufacturing) firm dedicated to helping businesses, inventors, and startups, tap overseas resources to succeed in the Global Economy.

Go To Global Sourcing Specialists Website

Your email address:


Powered by FeedBlitz

Blog powered by TypePad

January 10, 2008

High-Quality Manufacturing is so "in"! How Can You Get Some?

Zoolander_2 Getting quality product from offshore manufacturers entails laying out and adhering to a development process.  Time to market is important, but delivering poor-quality product is probably worse than delaying your ship date a bit.  If I buy a product and it doesn't live up to it's promise (translation: it's a piece of &$#@), you better believe that I'm not going back to that brand. 

To build quality INTO your products, consider the steps in the process that may need to take place and the time you may need to accomplish them.  Below is an example GANTT chart (you should be able to click on it to open it) for a product development schedule of a consumer electronic product I just came up with (this one is pretty cool and if 1% of the human market buys one, man...)

Example_gantt_chart_for_blog_3

This is a pretty raw chart, meaning it's not based on a whole lot of information, and activity timelines could lengthen or shorten a bit depending on the issues that arise, the kind of product, etc.  This particular product requires complex, high-quality injection molding.

We're at least 6 months out from being production ready.  What's taking so long?  Well...

  • Production Package Release: The company has provided a full design package including industrial designs, parts drawings, Bill of Materials, and Specifications.  This is important.  It lays out exactly what the product will do, look, feel, and how. 
  • Factory Review/Component Sourcing/Costing:  A factory then needs to review all the materials received, answer any initial questions, go out and contact the appropriate suppliers, review relevant information with them, assemble all of the initial production and cost information, and pass that back onto the company.  It's similar to the telephone game you played in Kindergarten, only harder.
  • Looks-like/Works-like Prototype Build: If the company builds a prototype, this will give them a good indication that the factory is nailing down the concept on their end and may provide the company with something to show the market, investors, etc.
  • Contract Negotiation/Prototype Approval: There's usually some back-and-forth with the factory regarding costs.  There will also likely be some modifications made to the prototype after the company's review, until the prototype is "approved" by the company.
  • Tooling Release (start):  Upon the approval of the prototype, the company issues a tooling release to the factory.  It's time to build those big steel molds so that we can shoot molten plastic into them a million times or more.  The timeline on this may vary quite a bit.  Usually, 3 weeks or so is a minimum.  But, if my satellite imaging/dog feeder/garlic dicer needs to have specific finishes on the plastic to give them that sleek and shiny look, then extra time may be needed to polish and fine tune the tools to accomplish this.
  • First Shots on Tools: When the tools are completed, the factory runs them.  They shoot the plastic in them and see what comes out. 
  • 1st Engineering Pilot/Parts Review:  The factory tries to put the pieces together to test for "fit and function".  They may also pass the peices onto the company for feedback.
  • Tooling Modifications:  More than likely, modifications will need to be made to the molds to get them right.
  • Final Shots on Tools: The tools are run again.  Steps like this probably won't take a week.  But it never hurts to have a little buffer time that may be eaten up somewhere else in the process.
  • Final Engineering Pilot/Parts Review: The pieces are tested and reviewed again by the interested parties.
  • Tooling Release (complete): When the pieces work, the company issues a tooling release indicating that the tools are approved.
  • Package Art Release: The company issues the packaging art to the factory.  This may happen at different steps in the process and is not really dependent on the other steps.  However, it's advisable to be moving into this phase earlier rather than late. 
  • Print Proof Review/Approval: The factory sends packaging "proofs" back to the company for review.  If the proof looks good, the company signs off.
  • Product Testing: The product, in packaging, is needed for these steps.  Depending on the kind of product and the duress it will be under during transportation, use, etc., the factory will put the product and packaging through several tests.  Tests may include drop testing, environmental testing, transportation testing, power testing, throw it against the wall and see what happens testing, put it in the smoke break room and see what colors change testing, and finally my favorite, pour red bull and vodka into it and see if it can stay out at the club until 6am testing). 
  • Production Pilot:  Once the product meets the specs in the testing, the production line is set up, run, and debugged of potential issues.
  • Production Unit Review/Approval:  The first articles (the first units coming off of the production line) are reviewed and sent to the company in package for approval.  This is their baby and represents what will soon turn into millions of products flying off of the shelves into consumers garages or "what-have-you" drawers. 

I've now hit my bullet point quota for the next year, but there's quite a lot to do here.  Going through a process like this, with several tests and verifications along the way, helps to ensure that what a company gets out of the production line on the other end is what they wanted in the beginning.  Notice that this doesn't even include incoming QC inspections, production line inspections, and 3rd party inspections before shipment.   But if you allow yourself enough time to go through this process correctly and efficiently, you end up keeping your promise to your customers with high-quality products going into their hands.  That's so hot. 

January 03, 2008

Product Design for Cutthroat Pricing: Start Making Friends

The message of this post came to mind after reading a post by DT at DesignSojourn, entitled 25 Bad Habits of Industrial Designers.  A few of the bad habits mentioned, specifically No. 11 and No. 13 ("not being friends with engineering" and "not being friends with marketing", respectively), got me thinkin'. 

Here is a product development approach geared towards failure which I often see in markets with high price sensitivity: 

Someone designs the product.  Someone engineers the product.  Someone applies for a patent on the product.  Someone prototypes the product.  Someone sources offshore manufacturing on the product. 

                                                              (quick breath...)

The tooling cost or unit cost of the product, even offshore, is out of the ballpark in terms of the organization's cost targets AND/OR the materials or processes called out by the design will not be matched exactly offshore. 

The organization seeks the cheapest source and gets burned on quality, payment, or both, OR, the organization redesigns for manufacturing cost and feasibility overseas.  Design and engineering costs go up.  The patent claims become constrictive or are negated entirely.  Time to market is increased.  And the product manager, CEO, or whoever in charge puts on 20 lbs through stress induced over-eating.

I see this happen often in industries that are very price competitive, because if you are off by 5% - 10%, you're out of the ballgame. 

Some might say this is just part of the development process.  Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, but onward we plod with a success rate that looks more like a baseball batting average.

Design is getting a lot of attention these days and that is good. Who doesn't like a well-designed product?   But...this also might encourage designers to feel they don't need friends in engineering, marketing, and manufacturing.  Yes, I'm talking to the guy wearing the black turtleneck.Black_turtleneck 

What would happen, if 3/4 of the way through the design or prototyping process, a designer called up a few other people in other departments or companies and asked for feedback?  Do they risk having their creativity crushed?  Do they risk a flurry of rejections that could kill inspiration?  Maybe. 

But, what if they learned that modifying their design could reduce the tooling cost by 30%?  Or, if the material they plan on using to give their product that "look", will increase the unit cost by a dollar.  Perhaps they might learn that their product is just plain large and heavy, and reducing it's size will reduce both the unit cost and shipping costs.  Quite often, designing a product to look "cool" adds cost.  Will the market bear that cost?

Good, experienced, industrial designers are often familiar with a lot of these issues.  But in today's world, in which people often need to specialize a great deal in a given craft in order to excel and become distinguished in their field, there is less time and energy to invest in learning about complimentary aspects of the business. 

Thus, the ability to make and collaborate with other specialists is a skill/habit that is becoming more valuable.

If it's price sensitive, you need to start making friends with everything (everyone) that impacts cost.  If it's going to be made overseas (after all, it's price sensitive), feedback from overseas early on will tell you if you're on the right track or not, and will probably save you steps in the long run.   Save that product design from the trash and start getting friendly.

October 30, 2007

Solar Decathlon Underdog, Santa Clara University, Shows That Team Diversity in Product Development and Design Can Do Wonders

Beating out the likes of MIT, Carnegie Mellon, Georgia Tech and the University of Colorado at Boulder, Santa Clara University (SCU), located in the Bay Area of California, took third place in an international solar house decathlonThe U.S. Secretary of Energy dubbed the SCU team the "Cinderella story from California".

House_scu The Solar Decathlon is an international contest drawing entries from Germany, Canada, Spain, and the U.S., in which students actually construct a small house representing the best in design and construction of an eco-friendly home.  I've posted a video below that depicts what a bunch of students go through to build a cutting-edge eco-house and enter the contest.  Previously unknown for its engineering resources and talent, SCU was a clear underdog from the outset (a German university took first and the University of Maryland took second). 

After taking a couple weeks to rest my blogging brain, I'm proud to come back with a story like this one.  Thankfully, this story offers more than the fact that it has to do with SCU, an institution near and dear to my heart.  When asked what contributed to their unprecedented success, SCU team leader James Bickford replied:

"Our strength was in the diversity of our team," Bickford said. "We are dominated by engineers, but we brought on communications majors, philosophers, anthropologists, artists."

While the group debated various aspects of the project, "those struggles are what made it a good house," he said. "Those diverse and creative thoughts produced a better product than any one discipline could have by themselves."

The benefits of a diverse team in product development aren't a novel concept.  IDEO, a world-class design company that describes itself as specialists in human factors, psychology, business, design, engineering and manufacturing, is renowned for its ability to create diverse teams for the development process and create truly innovative and effective products.

T03_5 Although the concept of capitalizing on team diversity isn't new, it's so rarely used effectively.  One of the major reasons is the presence of "struggle" that comes with dissenting opinions.  Generally, hashing out conflicting opinions with others just isn't fun.  But, as demonstrated by the SCU students' Cinderella story, the benefits of doing so can be great.  Is everyone agreeing with you?


October 08, 2007

T2SE. Time to Shoot the Engineer?

What is this product?Free_ride_pen_3

A) Photon blaster from the set of Startrek

B) One of those solar-powered racing go-karts designed by MIT students, upside down

C) Don't even go there...

The Answer:  None of the Above.

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is a ballpoint pen.

The Free Ride pen sells at $150. 

But before I rush off to the website to buy this over-the-top, engineering wonder (brought to my attention by the OhGizmo blog) and make my check-writing experience even more intriguing, I have to ask myself:

Is there a time to "shoot the engineer"? 

I googled this exact saying and got a page of search results which tells me: I am not alone in this question.  Or is it that, in the schoolyard of product development, the marketing bullies have simply come up with new ways to give a "marketing wedgy" of sorts to the engineering kids?  "For once and for all, go play sales and stop breathing down our necks!", the engineers scream.

As OhGizmo blog exclaims, the design and engineering of this pen may have been taken a stretch too far.  This company at least got this pen to market (I wonder how it's selling...).  You've got to hand it to them, because the dirty alley of product development is littered with projects and products that never got into the marketplace and made money for their companies.  If only there was a blackmarket, or even an EBay for works-like prototypes and unfinished CAD drawings...

At some point, you've got to save the next batch of engineering changes for a future product release.  At some point, you need to take the reams of Excel files, Bill of Materials docs, Engineering Requirement docs, and drawings, and stamp "Final" on them.   At some point, you have to look at the money you have in the bank, the calender, and the state of your product design, and figure out that you needed to get your design package to the manufacturer yesterday. 

I'm sure that even the FreeRide pen had only so much time to be designed and engineered before it was built and shipped. 

Your product may be the next space machine or just a better mousetrap.  It doesn't matter.  Just make sure you stop engineering and you start selling before you run out of money or someone designs and sells a better photon blaster than your's.

August 20, 2007

Product Development at Triumph Motorcycles: Leaked Video

Courtesy of Paul Young's ProductBeautiful blog, this highly sensitive, insider video was created at Triumph Motorcycles and walks us through their product development process.  Triumph is a British manufacturer of cruisers, the style of motorcycle championed in the U.S. by Harley-Davidson.  Their production line is one of a kind and this video may give you just the edge you need to give your product life.  It's also a good start to a Monday morning.

Paul is also now posting some great insights into the The Challenges of Overseas Manufacturing and the role of a product manager in overseas design, development, and production.  This is a cross-post he and I collaborated on and he is building on a number of common themes and issues which I gave my perspective on in this post.  Part I of Paul's points can be read here.  Part II can be read here

July 18, 2007

Patenting, Prototyping, and Manufacturing Your Product: What to do When?

I recently had a very interesting conversation with Andrew Krauss, President of the Inventors Alliance and co-founder of InventRight, about the vast number of entrepreneurs and inventors who use the same, ineffective methodology to get their businesses and products going.  We shared a number of observations.  First, many starting out are convinced that they must apply for a full patent immediately before speaking a word to anyone about their product.  Thus, they find a patent attorney who will take them through the patent search and application process for a mere $3,000 to $20,000 dollars, so that after months of time and money spent, the entrepreneur or inventor can then begin to explore how they will actually make money off of their product.  I think Andrew and I arrived at the same conclusion that the question isn't whether patent attorney's fees are a good investment--but the question is when to invest?  The same question could be asked of prototyping as well as when to approach manufacturers?

Stephen Key of InventRight (Andrew's partner) is one of the most successful inventors you will find.  He has developed and licensed products to companies like Disney, Nestle, and Coca-Cola, as well as manufactured and sold his own products.  Andrew and Stephen formed InventRight to teach inventors how to license their products.  Whether you are licensing or building a business around your product, their advice in these areas holds true. 

In a post on the InventRight Blog, Stephen answers a few questions regarding the issues of patenting, prototyping, and marketing.  This post regarded the question of obtaining a provisional patent versus a full patent.  Stephen comments: 

I’m not an attorney and can’t offer you legal advice. I will tell you what I use the Provisional Patent for.
 
Simply put, the Provisional Patent gives you one year to fish off that pier and see if a manufacturer is interested in your idea. It’s super cheap and I can file it myself due to it’s much less demanding requirements.
 
If it’s a statistical fact that 97% of all patents don’t make any more money than the inventor spent on the patent, why would you want to go out and spend 6 grand or more on a patent. I’m not saying you shouldn’t file patents, what I’m saying is that you should get some interest from a manufacturer before you do.

In another post, he addresses the decision of when to pursue a prototype.  He responds to a reader's question on this issue:

A better question to ask yourself is what is your plan once you have a prototype. I talk to many, many inventors that spend a bunch of money on a prototype and a patent before they even have a plan as to how they plan on selling their idea. You need to understand the process of selling an idea before you spend money on patents or prototypes.

One of the biggest and most important challenges in building your business around a product is selling your product.  Selling is hard.  Most aren't comfortable with the rejection, numerous phone calls, time spent, and hard work involved in getting people and companies interested in your product enough to lay down their cold, hard cash for it.  Before you can even do this, you need to figure out the game plan on how you are going to sell your product. 

Before splurging on a prototype, you can file a provisional patent yourself, undertake some preliminary market research, and begin to formulate your gameplan.  How big is your market?  Who are the competitors?  Where are they selling?  How much are they selling for?  And, what messages are they driving at their customers?  Who will you need to contact to get your product out there?  Retailers?  QVC?  PR agencies?  Names?  Phone numbers?  Your sell sheet?  How does the whole puzzle fit together step-by-step? 

During this time, you may want to consider fiddling around with a home-made prototype on the kitchen table if you can.  But there is certainly no need to go out and spend $5,000-$15,000 dollars on the best prototype money can buy at this point.  If you're going to approach a manufacturer and build and sell the product yourself, a simple, looks-like/works-like prototype will suffice in getting the ball-rolling.  They should be able to provide ballpark costing, or walk you through a few steps to get you to the point where they can provide information like this.   The general point to take away is to investigate, as much as you can, whether you will get a worthy financial return on your time and money spent before committing a large amount of your time and money. 

June 18, 2007

Thomas Edison vs. Inventoritis: A Heavy-Weight Product Development Match for the Ages

Lightbulb_lighting_2 Inventoritis...  Sounds like Gingivitis.   But without the bad breath.  Or, so I hear.

Generally, one of the most difficult challenges in developing a successful product or business is getting out of our own way.  I struggle with this daily.  I watch others struggle with it daily.  We all do--from corporate innovators to independent inventors.   I am certain that my own success as a business person and product developer is largely impacted by my own ability to train myself to get out of my own way.

How do we get in our own way in the first place?

Peter Paul Roosen and Tatsuya Nakagawa, two product marketing gurus, have co-authored a white paper, Inventoritis Exposed, which gives a name to the phenomenon of getting in our own way when it comes to innovation and new product development.  I previously wrote a blog post on the authors' concept of "Inventoritis", which they have incorporated into the paper.  In terms of product development, Inventoritis, is a condition that prevents market-driven innovation, or design for the user experience.  Because it's a challenge, that I believe, one can only control and perhaps eliminate through sustained effort over many years, decades, and perhaps a lifetime, it's worth continually refreshing my awareness and knowledge of it.  "Inventoritis Exposed" offers an interesting perspective on the issue, by analyzing the methods of America's most prolific inventor, Thomas Edison, who the authors assert exemplified the optimal path for commercializing innovative products.   

Before reading the paper, I have to admit, i did not know much about Thomas Edison beyond his invention of the light bulb and a few other items (which I am sure I will use today, but cannot name them).  But, Roosen's and Nakagawa's interesting stories of Edison (much of which is told through the first hand experience of Henry Ford) and analysis of his methods, create a vision of a person who was adamant about his own process of inventing and entrepreneurship, not just his own ideas and assumptions.  Edison's most famous quote:

“Genius is one percent inspiration and 99% perspiration. As a result, a genius is often a talented person who has simply done all of his homework.” 

The point that Roosen and Nakagawa make, is that "...all of his homework" does not just entail perfecting the product for perfection's sake, ego's sake, or science's sake.  The authors note:

What is not as well known, perhaps, is that his penchant for invention was rivaled only by his effectiveness as a marketer. Edison was in the habit of working backward from the market and doing whatever was needed to most expeditiously fill what he found to be the real or actual need. He was known to always be actively researching what everyone else was doing and had done. He sometimes bought and, on occasion, stole technology from others.

Few people today know or appreciate that Edison did not invent the light bulb. Joseph Swan was installing them in homes and landmarks in England before Edison’s first successful test was completed on October 21, 1879, when Edison’s carbon filament lamp successfully operated for only 13.5 hours. Additionally, Edison had bought the Canadian and US patent rights filed in 1874 for a carbon filament lamp by a Canadian medical electrician named Henry Woodward and his colleague Mathew Evans. What Edison did was to create the first commercially viable filament lamp which incidentally did not occur until more than six months after Edison filed his patent.

Henry Ford, a big fan and friend of Edison, offers his perspective: 

Not the least among the many remarkable qualities of the Edison mind is its ability constantly to maintain a perspective. He never has any blind enthusiasms.  An inventor frequently wastes his time and his money trying to extend his invention to uses for which it is not at all suitable. Edison has never done this. He rides no hobbies. He views each problem that comes up as a thing of itself, to be solved in exactly the right way. His approach is no more that of an electrician than that of a chemist. His knowledge is so nearly universal that he cannot be classed as an electrician or a chemist. In fact, Mr. Edison cannot be classified. He knows instinctively what things can be used for and what they cannot be used for.

It seems to me, Edison was a master of a process that helped him stay out of his own way.   He did this in terms of his assumptions of how things should be, and let the market guide him in terms of what products  and product features to pursue.  In addition, he was very adept at implementing a rigorous process that led him, technologically and commercially, to exceptional success.

The white paper offers much more.  And I believe the book, "Overcoming Inventoritis", by these authors covering this subject in much more depth has just become available. 

June 12, 2007

Prototyping Your Product: You Ain't Seen Nothin' Yet!

Do we live in an age in which we can draw with a pen, in thin air, an object we would like to create, and have the data captured by a machine and churned out in the form of a 3D prototype?  Or, perhaps we can take a 3D prototype, and just by touching, squeezing, pushing, and pulling on it, we could manipulate and mold the object into the dimensions we want to get a look at, and then change them to something else in seconds?  I am not on drugs.  These possibilities for Rapid Prototyping and Claytronics are beginning to become a reality, as the growth of new technologies is allowing for entirely new ways of creating and interacting with the 3D world.

Take a look at the sketch furniture of Front Design, a design group from Sweden.  They have devised a method of materializing free hand sketches in air by combining two technologies: motion capture and rapid prototyping.  Thus, what one draws in thin air comes out of a rapid prototyping machine hours later as a hard object.  What's that?  Aunt Mildred will be coming to dinner tomorrow night as well and we need an extra chair?  Ok...let me draw one.  Ikea...watch out. 

Want to take this a step further?  Welcome Claytronics, a synthetic reality project undertaken at Carnegie Mellon University:

The goal of the claytronics project is to understand and develop the hardware and software neccesary to create a material which can be programmed to form dynamic three dimensional shapes which can interact in the physical world and visually take on an arbitrary appearance.  Claytronics refers to an ensemble of individual components, called catoms—for claytronic atoms—that can move in three dimensions (in relation to other catoms), adhere to other catoms to maintain a 3D shape, and compute state information (with possible assistance from other catoms in the ensemble).  Each catom contains a CPU, an energy store, a network device, a video output device, one or more sensors, a means of locomotion, and a mechanism for adhering to other catoms.

Front Design's methods, while currently possible, are not necessarily available to those who don't have a motion sensor pen and rapid prototyping machine in the garage.  Looks like Ikea is safe for now.  Claytronics, and its various applications, are still a ways out from general use.  Researchers on the project have made noteworthy progress and are confident they will be able to manufacture their clay robots, but aren't quite sure whether it will be 5 or 20 years before they will accomplish what they hope for.  While these technologies are still largely coming down the pipeline, it's a sign of prototyping and so much more to come.  The possible applications are endless, but one that jumps right out at me is that companies and designers will be able to move through prototype iterations much more quickly and easily.  The length of time and work involved, for an idea to go from your head to a physical object, will be drastically reduced. 

June 04, 2007

5 Ways to Boot Strap, Prototype, Market Test, Focus Group, and Product Feature Your Way to Success, or Utter Failure

Mp_burning_money_2 Who says you don't have enough money to start a business?  Inventors and entrepreneurs:  How much does it cost to start your business?  Develop your product?  Test your product?  Launch your product?  Do you have enough?  Can you do it for less?

One of the number one reasons businesses fail is because they don't manage their cash flow and costs well.  I am willing to bet that another top reason that people never start the business they always dreamed of, or launch the product  they've been fiddling around with for 5 years, is they don't believe they have enough cash. 

Guy Kawasaki, a blogger/investor/entrepreneur/ tech evangelist, is smashing the belief that launching an internet business requires millions of dollars in venture capital investment.  Check out his latest post, through which we are seeing a live experiment in the launch of the Truemors.com site.  A business/website which he started for $12,107.09.  His monthly breakeven number?  $150.00. 

His point...well, he has many.  One of his points, is to show that without so many of the things we use to believe one needed to launch this kind of business, we can now go for it cheaply and see whether our idea will work in the real world.  It doesn't matter if his website succeeds or fails.  He'll either do well, or move onto the next thing quickly without much loss in time and money, and with the confidence that he knows for certain his idea wouldn't work.

I'm waiting to see the version of this in terms of a consumer product.  The ballgame is a bit different, but could it be done in relative fashion?  Barbara Carey seems to have developed a very strong product development strategy to keep her costs down before she feels good she has a winner.  For those new to the game, here are 5 quick strategies to getting your product as far along as possible without burning a ton of cash:

  • Provisional Patent:  It costs roughly $100.  It gives your intellectual property a degree of protection for up to one year.  That's a lot of time to develop and test your product to feel good about it before spending a lot of time and money on a full patent. 
  • Build Your Own Prototype:  This might not work in every case.  But, chances are you can start to prototype parts of your product or rough, works-like prototypes of your product with off the shelf parts, a little ingenuity, and elbow grease.  This might be enough to get it front of a test group to start getting input.
  • Test Your Product:  You can put your product, packaging, concept, drawings, anything in front of friends, family, focus groups, shoppers walking out of stores, your barber, and the monkeys at the zoo, to get as much input as possible for free, before you spend more to move your product down the development path.
  • Wait on the Formalities:  In my first business, I learned a ton.  I learned that I didn't need to go out and spend wads of money on gold-plated business cards, an expensive website (it should look good though), a $5000 logo, my own six figure salary, and any other thing that didn't directly help me do the most important things of all: develop customers for my product and develop a product for my customers.
  • Don't Stop Testing:  Did the record skip?  Nope.  Testing again.  Don't stop.  Ever.  Each testing point is a gate to see if your product passes through and warrants spending more time and money.  It's a chance to continue innovating and developing a better product for a better market.  Have a question about your product or anything related to it?  Get others' input by putting it before them.

The monkeys at the zoo are waiting...

May 22, 2007

Business and Product Strategy - Part 2, The Long Tail

Longtailgraph_3I apologize for putting a graph at the top of this post.  I bet half of you will wince in pain upon seeing that. But those aren't just pretty colors; they help me to build on yesterday's post on strategy and risk. 

Can your business strategy or product development strategy be based on flexibility and variety?  Take a look at HitForge, a new web 2.0 start-up company in Silicon Valley.  I first ran across this company in Business 2.0 magazine, and then on a blog post by David Bayless, of EvergreenIP, a product capitalist company, entitled The Cost of Failure Falling...Success Remains Elusive.  Bayless notes the 80/20 Rule of Long-Tail Economics, which describes the phenomenon that 80% of the revenues made out there by start=up businesses seem to come from 20% of the offerings.  You hear this rule in many industries: 20% of the real estate brokers make 80% of the money, 20% of waiters make 80% of the tips, etc.  The point the rule is trying to make is that it's not a bell curve out there in terms of returns.  It's a long tail.  In addition to this phenomenon, Bayless notes observations by Guy Kawasaki, a notable Silicon Valley investor and entrepreneur, that the cost of starting up businesses has fallen dramatically.  Naval Ravikant, a Silicon Valley investor and entrepreneur, will be testing this model with his new company HitForge.  Bayless comments:

...the hit-and-miss nature of Web 2.0 companies is not unique.  The market outcomes of a host of other businesses, including movies, music, and books are subject to long-tail economics, where a small number of offerings account for the bulk of revenues...

In fact, research shows that a remarkably broad range of consumer products, from food to sporting goods, can be similarly described [3].

Secondly, the cost of failure is falling.  As Kawasaki puts it,  

During the dot-com bubble, you needed $5 million to do stupid ideas.  Now you can do stupid ideas for 12 grand.

The implication for these entrepreneurs is to predict less and experiment more.  To do that, Ravikant has launched Hit Forge:  

This is like a movie studio.  It's about milestone-based development, piloting concepts, access to distribution...The engineers have the freedom to experiment, but they have 90 days to ship a product.  The product has to grow organically without any marketing.

  Those that survive get more funding and access to distribution.  

We are going to build as many as 20 companies a year.  We need to find one hit to succeed.  We can do that.

Is this Michael Raynor's ideas on prozac?  Or crack?  HitForge might be an extreme test of this model, but Venture Capitalists have been doing this for years.  They always seem like geniuses after Google goes public or YouTube gets bought out, but the fact is that they invested in at least 100 other companies in each of those cases, just to hit upon the big payoff in Google and Youtube.

Perhaps the strategy might be to develop a variety of 10 low-cost products, test them in various specialty stores to see how they're received, take the winners to the tight shelf space in a large retailer, where they win you more shelf space?

In terms of products and supply, the driver of the long-tail phenomenon is the cost of inventory and distribution.  If these are higher, it only makes sense to stock your hottest selling items.  If these costs are lower, then it is cheaper to offer a greater variety.  Think about limited shelf space.  If a retailer has only 2 spaces for your 8 products, only the 2 hottest selling products will be shelved.   In addition, manufacturing 10 different products is expensive and creates a much more complex and expensive supply chain. 

So how does one capitalize on this strategy?


May 21, 2007

How Much Are the Strategies Behind Your Business and Products Really Worth?

Too interesting to do all in one post.  In the last few months, I've been routinely running across this topic in everything from business blogs, conversations with entrepreneurs, to business books.  It's the topic of business strategy and whether a significant amount of strategic planning for our business, product marketing, product development, etc., as we know it, is really worth a...  I couldn't do the topic justice in one post without making your eyeballs bleed from gray font.  So this is just the beginning.

A good starting point is this video.  If you can get past the cheesy intro on this short interview with Michael Raynor, author of the The Strategy Paradox: Why Committing to Success Leads to Failure, and questioning why the interviewer's side of the room looks like it's midnight and Michael's side 9am, what Michael explains about business strategy is worth listening to and pondering.

His analysis points to the basic question of risk. How much do we really know?  How certain are we about that which we're guessing about?  The idea is to embrace the fact that, generally speaking, we don't know a whole lot about the business environments we face and we can't be certain of much beyond what we do know, so what good does having a masterful business strategy and executing it perfectly do if the outcome is based on many factors out of our control anyways?

His comments on Microsoft developing multiple strategic options and possible product offerings in the 80's gives us a great example  of how Microsoft enabled itself to dominate the personal computing software space no matter which direction the market went.  Some companies have hit home runs by coming up with a great strategy and executing it flawlessly.  But the percentage of these is likely to be miniscule in comparison to those companies who have done the same, but failed miserably because the market went an unforeseen direction.  In an age where market shifts are occurring more frequently and quickly than ever, variety of options and flexibility may win supremacy over commitment to a strategy in the early stages of starting your business and getting your product out there.

Does your business strategy allow for flexibility to go the right direction when the market gives you feedback?  When developing your product line, are you creating a variety of products that will test various niches, offer different solutions or combinations to the problem your product resolves, or allows you to push it out through various channels to see where it does well?   

Another good interview with Michael Raynor on this topic can be found at Guy Kawasaki's popular business blog here.    

April 03, 2007

Interview With Barbara Carey: A Woman With Something To Teach You About Successful Products and Business

Recently, I had the pleasure of talking at length with one of the most successful people I know of when it comes to taking products to market. Barbara Carey is one of a kind.  She is a very charismatic woman and I never knew an interview could be so fun and interesting.  Who knew how important chugging beer and being incorrigible could be to learning how to commercialize a product? 

Barbara spoke to me about how she blossomed from a young woman struggling to get her business going, to a tremendous success as an inventor and entrepreneur.  In the process, she has become a master at taking products to market successfully.  She has commercialized over 100 products.  For anyone interested in building a business or getting their idea or product out there, this woman has something to teach you.  She taught me a lot, and I'm in the business. 

We covered some of the psychological and behavioral aspects involved in getting your product out there, and getting a business going.  But, Barbara also offered great, practical strategies about pricing your product, selling it, and building your business in general.  She's launching the The Carey Formula, which consists of a book, resources on CDs, and more.  Because the interview had so much useful info, I will post the entire dialogue, split into three parts.  Bottomline, for those interested in getting a product on the market or building your business, this is information that will help you:

Part I
Getting Your Product to Market:  Passion, Persistence, and Perspective

A:  How did you determine what you were going to put into your book?  Was it based on the other kinds of information you already saw out there in other books and programs? 

B:  I didn’t look at what was out there already.  I’ve read a lot of business books and knew that my experience was unique and I wanted to dig deep into my soul and answer the questions that I get whenever I give speeches or people call me up, they say “gee, you’re an overnight success, how did you do it?”  Because when you read about me, typically it’s about one of the successes I’ve had, but there’s a lot that goes on behind the scenes, and I wanted to give them the real story.  The truth is, I’m not an overnight success.  But the trick is that I always knew who I was.  And I really wanted to give my readers an experience.  Right at the beginning of the book, I talk about “the two P’s”, Passion and Persistence; they are common threads throughout the entire book. 

A:  I’ve come across a lot of articles and books about business and successful people and many of them have put forth the common idea that those two things (passion and persistence) are undoubtedly the most important factors that determine success.

B: Absolutely.

A:  It’s one of the softer, fuzzier subjects, which people tend to think of abstractly, but it’s so important.

B:  It’s also important that we, as people, evolve.  Our businesses evolve.  It’s so important as human beings to remember that we have the ability to be open and receive information, learn, and turn on a dime.  This is a huge advantage for a small company.  You don’t have to take your decision through the company’s board of directors.  I call these fax machine decisions.  Sometimes you’re standing around the fax with your co-workers, and a fax comes through, and you have to make a decision.  You have to be nimble and you can when you’re small.  As a small company, you have to use a different set of weaponry, like speed and flexibility, than the big companies. 

A:  Let’s talk about decision-making for a second.  In making a decision on the spot, for someone who is starting out in the process, you never have perfect information and you never have all the information.  So how do you ‘wing it’?  How much do you need to know before you go forward?  And the emotional process that goes along with that?

B:  It’s hard.  You can only make the best decision you can at the time.  I collect as much data/information about that decision as I can.  I might go to people who I respect and bounce ideas off of them.  And finally, I weigh my gut instinct.  You take all of those things into account.  And you also have to know that sometimes, with some issues, you’re gut instinct is not the way to go.  Sometimes, the way I feel people will receive a key message, is not in fact the way the masses do.  So I talk about this in the book—I do a lot of surveys.  Whether you are sending out surveys through friends of friends, or more formally, you have to try and get a feel for the masses.  And, depending on how big the decision is, that’s how much research and thought you put behind it.  I’m consistently asking people questions and for feedback.  That’s a part of my success.  I don’t just charge ahead according to what I think.  But I try to open myself up to receive outside information as much as I can.  You want to learn as much as you can about your customers, end users, key influencers, and stakeholders, in the process.

A:  What would be the different steps someone would take with the Carey Formula—the book, the CDs, where would they start?  Where would they go from there?

B:  First, most companies, large and small, keep this information a secret.  I never had it in my DNA to withhold information.  When I competed in the hair product business, a lot of other inventors would come to me and say “how do I get my hair product to market?”  I would tell them, not only how to do it, but give them a phone number at a particular store and a buyer’s contact info.  I love connecting people like that.

But, my golden rule, is to sell your product first!  There’s a key example in my book, when I was very young, when I learned the power of this as I started my first business, pre-teen years.  It was a social security card business.  I went door-to-door and sold little cards to people with their social security numbers on them.  I sold out fast and when I went back to get my next order, I found out it was going to take 3 weeks.  But, I did have one card left and I used that to go around in the mean time and pre-sell my next order.  It turned out that people were very willing to do this.  Thus, my Carey Formula started at that very young age.  Of course, I didn’t really realize it as a young child.  But, as an adult, when I went to take my first product to market, I did not have the money to purchase my first order of inventory up-front.  So, I remembered my days of pre-selling social security cards based on showing one item that I made. 

I have a funny story.  One secret to my success is called ‘Perspective’.  So there’s Passion, Persistence, and Perspective.  Perspective is about the fact that I’m a thinker.  I constantly think about what I have learned in my life and how I can apply it to what I’m doing now.  When I was 16, I had visions of summers in Santa Cruz—cute boys and suntans were my thing.  But my parents had a hard time keeping me in school because, although I love to learn, I wanted to learn outside the four walls of a classroom.  That summer, my dad told me that I had a lot of potential but I was “incorrigible”.  And I didn’t know exactly what that word meant.  I thought it sounded like it had to do with encouragement.  So I said, “thanks dad”.  Instead of going to Santa Cruz, cute boys and suntans, he sent me to St. Louis, Missouri to baby sit my six little cousins all summer for $1 an hour.  At the time, I didn’t know I could have just as much fun in St. Louis as I could in Santa Cruz. 

The first day I came into the neighborhood, I decided that I was going to meet some friends and went door-to-door and said “Hi, I’m Barbie Kraft.  I’m incorrigible, but I have a lot of potential and I need to learn new behavior.  Do you have any teenage girls here?”  That night I had about nine teenage girls come to my house and sleep over.  We all sat together and talked about our dreams and I said, “you know girls…we’re all the same.  Do you know what you all are?  You’re all incorrigible just like me!”  They asked what the word meant and I told them “It means you have a lot of potential”.  So that summer, we all ran around with these badges of “incorrigibility”. 

I also learned “new behavior”, because that was the summer I learned to chug beer.  We would go to bars and I would approach men and say, “I bet you five dollars I can chug a beer faster than you.”  They took me on, and I beat them.  I thought to myself “this is a great way to make money”.  And, I wanted to make more, so I tried doing it 7 times in one night, but that didn’t end pretty.  So I tried a different approach.  “I bet you fifty dollars I can chug a beer faster than you”.  No one wanted to take me on for fifty dollars.  So I tried again, but with different approaches—test in pennies, spend in dollars, right?  So I said, “hey, I bet you twenty-five dollars I can chug a beer faster than you”, and they took me on.  So it was my very first lesson in price elasticity.  The point is: ‘Perspective’. When I first began selling my Hairagami product, I couldn’t make my commercial work.  I started at $19.95, but it didn’t sell very well.  Then, I remembered my beer chugging days.  Although instinct might tell someone to charge more money for their product because they are not selling enough of them, I realized I needed to sell my product for less money and get our call volume up.  So I charged $14.95, and it took off.  So the summer that I learned “new behavior” provided me an important perspective on how to approach this question that came up with my business.  In the end, everything that you do is the sum total of who you are.  When you are in a hard situation, use your perspective to call upon those key experiences in your life, no matter what they are, to help you understand the situation, make decisions, and go forward. 

A:  How would you deal with fear in those situations, such as approaching men in a bar and challenging them to drinking contests?  Or, in a professional situation, approaching a buyer for a major retail chain that will be key to your product’s success?  How do you deal with the fears that come up in these situations?

B:  I’m just like anyone else and I’ve had many of the same fears as anyone else. My father talked to me at a very early age about fear and we made a deal not to be controlled by it.  Sure, I was a little afraid approaching people, whether to challenge them to chug beers or ask them to place an order for my product, but I realized that I can’t control someone else’s reactions anyways.  I can control the choice to try and approach them and ask for the order or to chug beer. 

A:  It’s amazing how we often spend time concocting fears in our minds and reasons why a person will reject our requests, and we get a completely different reaction from what we expected, when we actually approach them. 

B:  This happens almost 100% of the time.  It’s amazing.  I worry just like anyone else worries, but usually someone’s reaction is a lot different than what I thought it was going to be.

A: And, your intention with the book was to bring these emotional aspects together with all of the tips, strategies, and lessons you’ve learned professionally to create a platform for people to launch from?

B:  It took me 25 years to develop all of these contacts and this story about one girl, who started with nothing and learned how to get where I am now through passion, persistence, and perspective.  I think it’s important to not only hear other people’s stories for motivational purposes, but to provide a roadmap on how to get there.  One of the secrets in the roadmap that I want to share with people is, if you can make one prototype of your product and get an order from that, there are many manufacturers out there that are willing to make that product for you and ship it.  And I’m not talking about a guaranteed sale order, in which your customer can ship any items back to you that don’t sell.  I’m talking about getting a real order and having a great chance of finding a manufacturer who will want to work with you. 

And, you don’t have to go out and get investors or financing.  Let’s talk about that for a second.  There are a lot of entrepreneurs out there who want to be their own boss, but they bring investors in and all of a sudden, they are working for someone else.  Why not be your own boss and have own your company?  And banks, they only want to deal with people who already have money, not with people who need money.  The Carey Formula is for anyone who wants to take a product to market or build a business, but will be specifically beneficial to people who are cutting their teeth in the business with a simple product or idea.  Starting this way is a great way to learn, make money, and then move on to more complex products if you want to. 

March 20, 2007

Obtaining Cost Estimates for Product Manufacturing

I recently wrote an article for Barbara Carey's Newsletter for inventors and entrepreneurs about how to obtain accurate cost estimates for the manufacturing of your product.  What do you need to begin this process?  I get this question all the time from clients new to the game, so I thought I would post the article here.

At an early point in the product development process, inventors and product developers need to address the manufacturing issues surrounding their product.  Can I make my product for a cost that is feasible within my business plan?  This is one of the burning questions you will want to address early on, before you invest too heavily in taking your product to market. 

Your production estimates might be fuzzy in the beginning.  You will probably create some form of ‘back-of-the-napkin’ analysis, and look at similar products on the shelf to get an idea of where your product should come in.  A very generic rule of thumb is that a product is marked up four or five times from manufacturer to retail.  If you see a widget selling for $4 on the shelf, you can assume that the hard cost to produce it was about $1. 

As your product progresses through the development cycle, you’ll continue to refine the assumptions that you’ve madeAccurate numbers become much more important at the later stages of the development process.  When you believe you are close to finalizing your design specifications package, it’s a good idea to add some concrete cost information to this analysis by contacting manufacturers to get quotes on your project. 

To do this overseas, you need to realize that effective communication is critical to accuracy and success. Thus, anything that can help you overcome the barriers of language, culture, and distance will help.  Engineering drawings – such as professional, CAD (Computer Aided Design) drawings - are excellent for this.  They convey information in the international language of math, instead of variables such as “very long,” or “deep shade of red.”  If you don’t have access to the services of a professional industrial designer, hand drawings may suffice for initial quotation purposes, particularly if the product is simple and you include basic dimensions.

Another great method for conveying information about your product is sharing, under a confidentiality agreement, an actual prototype or sample with the manufacturer.  An incredible amount of information can be deduced from a physical representation in one’s hand.  Color, finish, materials, parts, mechanics, etc., can all be quickly ascertained via a sample of your product. 

Finally, if you don’t have these things in your quiver just yet, pictures and descriptions can be helpful.  A picture can convey numerous qualities in similar fashion to samples.  And descriptions of how the product functions, what conditions it will need to withstand, and such, can help an engineer understand what is going to be needed to manufacture your product correctly. 

March 03, 2007

Product Design for Manufacturing

Product design, a fun but never easy task.  There are so many things to miss the mark on.  Does my product stand out?  Does it offer too few or too many features?  Does it offer the right features?  Can I  manufacture this product at a profitable price point? 

The Michael on Product Management and Marketing blog has a good article on 5 Tips for Kick-Butt Design.  Although his blog is primarily focused on high tech and software products, many of the central tenets are the same for hard consumer products.  He recommends:

  1. Start with User Interface
  2. Work with user Interface Designers
  3. Pay Attention to Details
  4. Simpler is Better
  5. Be Brave

To add to the difficulty in successfully accomplishing these five items (Michael notes the ease with which these are understood and the disturbing regularity of general neglect for them), it's a good idea to begin pondering how all of these things  will play out in a manufacturing sense, or design for manufacturing.  For whatever reason, the realities of manufacturing are often brought in late to the equation and can force a product development team to go back and start again, force undesirable tradeoff decisions, or in a worst case scenario, scrap their efforts.

A product development group recently came to us to get some preliminary costing for a large toy product they were working on.  Thankfully, I don't think they had gotten too far down the path when they began to explore the cost issues.  We didn't have much information to go on, but the pricing that came back from overseas vendors was way out of the ballpark in regards to their targets.  We've got some tricks up our sleeves to get the costs down.  Looking at alternative fabrication processes, alternative materials, feature tradeoffs, and good ol' negotiation tactics are all worth exploring.  It's going to be tough, but they're not out of the game yet.   

The point is, those 5 tips in product development are all great goals, just don't forget you have to be able to make the thing at a reasonable cost.  And if you can't, explore what changes you might be able to make to produce it at a reasonable cost.  And if can't do that, better to find out earlier rather than later.
 

February 10, 2007

Six Reasons Why Prototyping Pays

Prototyping in your product development process pays.  I can't stress the importance of prototyping your product.  If you are a first-time inventor, you should try and create a prototype yourself.  If off-the-shelf products and components are available--rock 'n' roll, you could be in business cheaply and in no time.  If you are going to work with a manufacturer and it's cost effective, having them create a prototype of your product can be very helpful in assuring that you get 10,000 units of what you paid for in a production order.

The Wikipedia Entry on Prototyping:

Prototyping is the process of quickly putting together a working model (a prototype) in order to test various aspects of a design, illustrate ideas or features and gather early user feedback. Prototyping is often treated as an integral part of the system design, where each prototype is influenced by the performance of previous designs, in this way problems or deficiencies in design can be corrected. When the prototype is sufficiently refined and meets the functionality, robustness, manufacturability and other design goals, the product is ready for production. 

Here's our take on what you can get out of creating prototypes of your product:

1)  Marketing Research:  Having something to place in your customers' hands allows them to physically interact with the product and opens a whole new realm of observation and insight possibilities into assessing and answering their needs better.

2)  Design and Engineering Spec Verification:  Having an overseas manufacturer create and send you a prototype based on their understanding of the product allows you to quickly assess whether they really understand the product.  You would be amazed at what can come back from a manufacturer after you think everything has been clearly explained.

3)  Quality Control:  A prototype from a manufacturer is going to give you an idea of the kind of quality of work that they do.  Typically, prototypes are not up to the quality level that your actual product will be.  They often are made from different materials, might be hand-poured, and might not perform all of the functions of the actual product.  That is ok.  What you want to see is how much effort the manufacturer puts into it in the first place--the attention to detail.

4)  Packaging:  You can photograph a good 'looks-like' prototype to use in your packaging, website, or other promotional materials.

5)  Communication:  Submitting an existing prototype to a manufacturer allows you to convey to them an enormous wealth of information.  They can hold the product in their hands, feel the finish, understand the working parts and requirements, sniff the glue, see the colors, etc.  This will help you circumvent the language barrier as they will be able to see for themselves.  This is extremely helpful.

6)  Attracting Investors and/or Selling Your Product:  If you are looking for investors for your company or product, or if you plan on using sales reps, or contracting with distributors or retailers, a prototype is an excellent way to sell your product.  It shows them that the design is almost or completely finished, allows them to better understand the value of your product, and indicates a seriousness about taking the product to market.

For one step in the product development process (which may be repeated many times), that's a lot of value in many important areas of your business.   

February 02, 2007

Inventoritis: The Surefire Way to Decrease Profits

I recently had a conversation with Tatsuya Nakagawa, author of the Product Life blog and CEO of Atomica Creative, a Vancouver based product marketing company, about the syndrome he likes to refer to as "Inventoritis".  He defines this as:

Inventoritis n. Any of a group of disorders usually characterized by withdrawal from reality, illogical patterns of thinking, paranoia, delusions and hallucinations accompanied in many cases by a portfolio containing granted patent applications and other forms of intellectual property including trade secrets. Inventoritis is associated with depressed or non-existent product sales and defects in marketing programs and is caused by excessive reliance on the assumed idea that one’s product or idea is an excellent one.

Taken from a product development and manufacturing perspective, I watch companies and inventors make their way through the trade-off process, in which they select their optimal combinations of features, costs, materials, and so forth for a product.  We've recently worked on a product requiring a rather simple component--as simple and as common as a button for a TV remote product or a shoulder strap for a carrying case.  With a common component like this, it's probably a good idea to see if one is already being produced out there that might fit with what you had in mind.  Avoid the need to spend thousands on tooling for a new component for your product!  Take that money and put it in marketing, or keep it as profit, or put it all on Black in the nearest casino.  Why design and build a new TV button? 

We sourced a nice alternative component, but the specs weren't quite a match (slightly wider than needed).  Rather than modify the designs for this (which would only have been an aesthetic modification), the client is still interested in tooling to maintain exactly what was envisioned.  This is where inventoritis and its evil cousin 'designeritis' smack into reality.  Multiply this approach a few times within one product development process and your looking at a surefire way to decrease your profits.

I say let it ride on Black...


 

January 25, 2007

Material Changes and Tooling

Plastic_injection Who likes chemistry?  Did your hand shoot up?  Mine didn't.  Except when people throw away lots of money on manufacturing because no one bothered to explain to them that when it comes to your materials and tooling, generally speaking, there's no going back!  You've got to nail down your product's materials before you tool for injection molding.  (Check out this Wikipedia article for a great description of injection molding and tooling)  You might be able to haggle with your manufacturer, but there's no haggling with mother nature.  The size of the cavities in your molds, where the molten plastic is injected into to form the shape of your product parts, depends on the cooling rate of the material.  As the material cools, it expands into the cavity.  The mold is built to account for that.  Trying to change to a material with a different cooling rate just isn't going to work.

On certain projects, we like to ask a lot of questions in regards to materials.  Usually, we're trying to reduce costs for clients by throwing out suitable alternatives.  We want to understand what qualities they like about the materials they want.  If there's a cheaper option that accomplishes the same goals--your company Christmas party might be a little bit nicer this year (we're accepting invitations). 

Occasionally, we'll get design packages from U.S. designers that call for very expensive materials to be used in products that are meant to retail at a competitive low price.  The designer was undoubtedly trying to design the best product for their client--materials included.  But this can be expensive when you go to mass production--yes, even overseas!  If you're going to have parts that are injection molded (which a vast amount of products taken to market do), you have to be certain about the materials you want before you build the tooling.

My high school chem. teacher would be proud of me for this post.

January 18, 2007

Products That Went Astray and Products That Saved The Day

Steven Blank is a retired entrepreneur, and teaches both Entrepreneurship and Customer Development at Berkeley’s Haas Business School and Stanford’s Graduate School of Engineering.  He has been involved in 8 startups over the course of his career.  His book, "The Four Steps to the Epiphany: Succesful Strategies for Products that Win"  is a great presentation about rethinking the product development process and is certainly worth checking out if you are looking to fall in the second group presented here, rather than the first.  Consider the following products:

Segway:  Thought their market was everyone in the world who walked and confused world class public relations with customers with checkbooks.  Still searching for their real markets.  Cost to date: $200 Million

Apple’s Newton:  They were right about the Personal Digital Assistant market but five years too soon.  Yet they spent like they were in an existing market.  Cost: $100 Million

Sony’s MiniDisc players:  A smaller version of the CD wildly popular in Japan.  The US isn’t Japan.  Cost to date: $500 million after 10 years of marketing.

R.J. Reynolds’ Premier and Eclipse smokeless cigarettes:  Understood what the general public (nonsmokers) wanted, but did not understand that their customers didn’t care.  Cost:  $450 Million

Motorola’s Iridium satellite-based phone system:  Engineering triumph and built to support a customer base of millions.  No one asked the customer if they wanted it.  Cost:  $5 Billion.  Yes, billion.  Satellites are awfully expensive.

And, there are many more in the Products that never were column…

A few in the Winners’ Column:

Proctor & Gamble’s Swiffer:  A swiveling, disposable mop-on-a-stick.  Sophisticated planning and consumer research have resulted in a $2.1 billion market in 2003 that could double by 2008.

Toyota’s Prius:  They’ve found a profitable niche for their electric hybrid car.  As a classic disruptive innovation, sales will grow and Toyota will continue to eat the existing US car companies for lunch.  In its first five years, sales grew to $5 billion.  By 2015, hybrids could make up 35% of the US car market.

General Mills’ Yoplait Gogurt:  Yogurt in a tube.  The goal was to keep their yogurt consumer base of toddlers and little kids for as long as possible.  Research led to the tube packaging, making yogurt easier to consume on the go. 

January 03, 2007

EdgeCraft: Take Brainstorming to New...Edges

Istockgreenmarble_on_edge_of_table Seth Godin writes one of the most consistently insightful blogs on marketing and the way ideas spread.  I am continually impressed by his ability to take my thinking in new directions.  An excerpt from his book, "Free Prize Inside" was published on Fast Company's website

In it, he describes a process called "EdgeCraft", a method of overcoming brainstorming sessions which yield little.  The process involves taking your product through small innovations to the edges of what exists out in the marketplace. 

The free prize is the element that transcends the utility of the original idea and adds a special, unique element worthy of more money and notice.

The way to find these ideas is what I call "edgecraft." It is a methodical, measurable process that allows individuals and teams to identify inexorably the soft innovations that live on the edges. It can be done quickly or over long periods of time. And you can even do it by yourself (I do my edgecraft in the shower. It has the added benefit of dramatically increasing personal hygiene).

Edgecraft is a straightforward process:

  1. Find an edge--a free prize that has been shown to make a product or service (in someone else's industry) remarkable.
  2. Go all the way to that edge--as far from the center as the consumers you are trying to reach dare you to go.

Moving a little is expensive and useless. Moving a lot is actually cheaper in the long run and loaded with wonderful possibilities. It's easy (but pointless) to open your store another 30 minutes a day. It's more difficult (but possibly a fantastic strategy) to open your store 24 hours a day. Little changes cost you. Big changes benefit you by changing the game, but only if you go first.

B