The Flip Side
of Product Improvement
January
4, 2005 - by
Robert E. Stevens, GENESIS II
(The
Second Beginning) E-Mail: views@aol.com
After I sent out my Views
of May 24, 2004, titled "But we have always
done it this
way", Ms. Janet Pizzarello of Sorensen Associates, sent me one of the
most
intriguing papers I have read on the topic of "Change." The paper was
a presentation given by Neil Postman titled "Six Things Worth Knowing
About Technology." I do not know where it was given or even to whom it
was
given. I only know it was given some time around 1991. [Editor's
note: the paper referenced is: Postman, N. "Six Things Worth Knowing
About Technology." Cause/Effect 14 (3) (Fall 1991):
46-48.]
The
presentation focused on the
meaning and impact of technology on our culture. The first idea was
that all
technological change is a Faustian bargain. That is, for every
advantage a new
technology offers, there is always a corresponding disadvantage. As I
have
often said, 'There is no such thing as a free lunch." Unfortunately the
creators of the new technology turn a blind eye to the potential of a
down-side
to the product. Some will intentionally ignore the possibility for fear
of
damaging their project.
In one of my
lectures I frequently refer to Newton's Third Law. Newton said that
for every
reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction. I believe it is not
only true
in physics but also in business. I use a shortened version,
however, that is
for every action there is a reaction. Actually, we hope there is a
reaction and
that the reaction is positive. But in business there are usually
multiple
reactions, some positive and some negative. There will be times when
the
disadvantage will exceed the importance of the advantage, or the
advantage will
be worth the cost of the disadvantage.
Consider the
1980s New Coke venture
where New Coke was a positive for the product but not the brand. Or
recall one
that I was involved in which resulted in a costly market introduction.
That is, Rely. In this case we had a very superior Tampon but the
superior
attributes
led to a costly end result. A result that research could not have
predicted.
You just do not conduct research that results in a negative effect
among fewer
than one in hundreds of thousand of users.
There are results that
present
additional opportunities. Consider a short history in laundry
practices. When I
started at P&G in 1951, our flag-ship Tide was taking a firm
foothold in the
market. While Tide brought excellent cleaning and whiteness to the
market, it
had a downside. At that time almost all laundry was line dried. Clothes
washed
in Tide were stiff as a board, whereas clothes washed in typical soap
products
such as Duz, Oxydol, Rinso and Silver Dust were very soft. Enter a new
market
opportunity, fabric softener. As time passed, the use of automatic
washing
machines and dryers entered the market. Clothes dried in the new
automatic
dryers did not result in stiff fabrics even without the use of a fabric
softener. However, enter a new opportunity, clothes dried in the new
automatic
dryers held static. The downside to dryers was static cling. The result
was
fabric softeners that controlled static cling.
With every
change, look for the
negative side effect as well as the opportunity. Both will be there.
Sponsor: Sorensen Associates Inc
Portland, OR: 800.542.0123
Minneapolis, MN: 888.616.0123
the
in-store research company™ -- Dedicated to the
relentless pursuit of WHY?
![[Views home]](grey-left.gif)
![[Views home]](grey-up.gif){kind=small}
![[Next]](grey-right.gif)