The Dangers of Extrapolating Early Adoption

From Everett M. Rogers' Diffusion of Innovations (1962) we got this terminology around Early Adopters, and then for some reason it got even more popular than the term Innovators. Here's the classic adoption curve we all would have seen.

So what does that mean for our business? It means that the innovators and the early adopters really bring in the early majority, the bulk of our business. They give us signs on what's our likely scale, what we should get right, what we should do less of, and so on. They've taken the leap of faith with our products, so we also love them more, and rightfully so.

Everett M. Rogers' Diffusion of Innovations 1962

There are two dangers of this focus on early adoption that were called out in this article I came across recently by a gentleman called Peter de Jager, namely:

a) People do not fall into one Change Adoption Category; they drift from category to category depending on the specific change/innovation. There are no people who are always early adopters in every category, and

b) The statement "13.5% of the general population are Early Adopters" makes two related and dangerous assumptions.
        a.     complete Adoption Curve will exist for any change..
        b. It assumes 13.5% of us will embrace any change,

Evidence of the incorrectness of this statement is found in two casual observations, he says;
      a) At the height of the Hula Hoop craze, not everyone was hula-hooping
      b) Not even 2.5% of the population have bought a Segway

The adoption terms are accurate only in hindsight; they tell you nothing about how a population might respond to a change/innovation.

I found it very insightful and enlightening. In addition, I wanted to highlight something I've been trying to convince various companies on for a while. It may not be just useless to listen too literally to your early adopters, it could also be dangerous. It's like entering the weld-shop without the safety goggles and here's why.

The early adopters are called out as a separate segment in all these studies because they are different. How different? Sufficiently different to be called out separately from the majority. They think and act differently and look for different things in products or services. What may be really cool and worth paying for, for this community, may still be cool, but not worth paying for by the early majority. Concorde stands out as an example, but that probably deserves a separate dedicated post.

Peter's examples on the Hula Hoop and Segway are appropriate to think about here. One of our current struggles in eCommerce now is the same. Less than 1% of the opportunity has happened in India, there is temptation but not logic to extrapolate our learning to the entire potential community. It could be okay to do in Durables or Telecom where more than half the potential population has been onboarded. But in nascent industries, there is really no reason to believe that the other 99% will behave like this 1%.

Innovation and Attrition

They say men are known by the company they keep. I believe a company is also known by the men it keeps.

Who invented the iPhone? Most people might just say Apple, while we understand it must have been someone within Apple. A company is a set of people. Most of the intellectual property owned by a company comes from its people. This bit is clear.

If the link of innovation to attrition is unclear, let's just first establish IP = people, and then the link of people to attrition. For all companies in the world, attrition is a reality of varying proportions. Again for all companies, innovation and creation of intellectual capital is a clear part of purpose, and a strong lever of competitive advantage and sustainability. This IP, despite all the talk of DR/BCP, effectively resides in the minds of a company's employees, we know that. When we lose people, we lose IP.

I daresay it is impossible for a company to have a innovation strategy without having a strategy to retain key people responsible for innovation and other guardians of such IP. We all understand it is not very difficult to replicate innovations people see in one company in the next company they join. It is in more cases than some, easy to tweak designs to escape patent litigation. A lot of IP, especially around business innovation, as against technology, is implicit and never patented. A lot of other IP is not patented since patenting is a time-consuming process and requires you to declare and define the innovation, which is seen as making it easier for competition to access, copy and tweak the same.

Next level - it may not be real attrition, but maybe even pre-attrition loss of engagement that might prevent people from opening up their ideas for the good of the organization (or, let’s say, to further their own growth in the organization for the more self-centered ones) instead of saving up their ideas for the day they either start something on their own, or another environment that makes them feel it’s for the longer term there. Or simply provides for more respect for their ideas.

We hire people who bring knowledge with them. We value employees for their prior experience at respected organizations. We expect them to deliver results leveraging their knowledge and experience. The competition expects exactly this from our employees.

It’s high time we take a hard cross-functional look - are we really investing on ideas for our own company’s future or are we in danger of becoming a breeding ground for talent and ideas for our competition to benefit from?

Who's your Competition?

I'm sure all of us strategy guys get this all the time. How do we get competitor information? How do we confirm it? How do we spell-out risks and mitigation plans? How do we make plans around their weak points? What's our competitive strategy? How have we reverse engineered competition's strategy? Then the usual stuff around deep dives, war-game simulations, scenario planning and so on. I often feel another question should come first.

Who's our competition?

Now one approach is to dismiss this questions as too basic (come on, how old are you?). The other common approach is an exercise around competition mapping. The question, however, is different - it's not about listing but defining. Let me try and clarify, but before that, another basic question at this point, who should be defining competition for us? Aren't all of us senior guys smart enough to do this? Well sorry but no.

Our consumer defines who our competition is.

Let me try and peel the onion here. I work for an eCommerce firm. Our consumers aren't people who have a need for eCommerce because no one really dies without eCommerce, we're one of the channel choices (s)he makes. The need is perhaps for a Juicer. Maybe the consumer doesn't even need a Juicer but Juice. Maybe not even Juice but refreshment or health. Now given this hypothetical flow, a competing product is one that gives him / her a competing option, an alternate route to refreshment or health. Here's what - this is illustrative. I'm not claiming to define this for consumers and neither is the peeling of the onion complete. The point, however, is to show how competition is a) defined by the consumer's need-states and b) wider than we think.

I've worked in the Durables and Appliances industry. I know for most of the time, we feel what competes with our juicer is another juicer. We don't think much about any threats that are not appliances while the truth is that if packaged juices get better and cheaper, if someone sets up juice-vending machines all around, no one will buy our juicers. If someone brings dissolve-and-drink juice-pills to the market (I realize it sounds like an ugly idea but who knows, so did rock music to the classical guys), then the juice-story also dies.

What hit pagers was not cheaper, better pagers. Film-photography, personal-computers, walkmans, watches and so many other products were killed because execs were too bothered looking for competition in the room while the consumers simply shifted to a better source to, literally, get their juice. I'm sure you will know many more examples of these occurrences than I can list, where, as someone says in Sharp Teeth by Toby Barlow - "the bullet that hits you is never the one you're running from".

Personalization versus Customization

A lot of things in online retail have changed in the last some years. The biggest is that we have been told that the online buyer now doesn't like take-it-or-leave-it experiences. I'm not sure anyone's tested it out (e.g. do users buy from suboptimal websites if, say, the prices are slightly lower there?), but let's say it makes logical sense. Another equally big thing that has changed is our ability to create multiple experiences on the same website, without which the first insight is useless. The third thing to keep in mind as background is what I may have said before in the Escalator Problem post, most shopping sites are built by techies, not retailers. Techies love complexity. Multiple experiences, multiple skins on the same backbone is exciting and cool for techies.

As a result of all the above and more, the hue and cry for Personalization.

There's one small school for customization and another big school for personalization, to be clearer, and the second school considers vanilla customization-ability uncool. Custom flows are about giving the user a choice of experience that the user explicitly makes (e.g. you want to see more deals? more lifestyle or tech? when you log in?) while Personalized flows second-guess the user (e.g. we know that you have bought / browsed T-shirts, so here's more T-shirts when you log in). It is cooler to not ask the user but surprise him / her with what we know without being told.

I'm not sure what the best approach is. Personalization could be cooler but could just be techie-cool and not user-cool. I believe customization is safer, not sure if that's the best. Here are a few things to remember whenever, if ever, we as businesses make this call.

a) Users may actually like being asked questions when they walk in. Maybe it's a nice thing to ask them if they like seeing deals on furniture better than music instruments.
b) We know some people mind being second-guessed. We all know the Target example, what happens when your analytics team figures out someone's daughter is pregnant without that someone knowing about it.
c) There could be parts of the user's browsing or buying that (s)he doesn't want recorded for a number of reasons you can imagine
d) Preferences change, with time, with occasion and so on. You may know the buyer's history, but that may not be a good predictor of his / her present state of mind. For that matter, even people change over time.
e) There could be things the user is done with. Maybe (s)he's already purchased the dream double-bed from your site or elsewhere, and now your snowing him / her with latest double-beds is not just useless but harmful. The next time the same person will buy a double-bed is either ten years later or never.
f) There is a distinct possibility, and probability of multiple-user-ids e.g. the son using his Dad's id or the wife using her husband's - maybe it is faster than creating a new id or maybe that someone's received a coupon the other person wants to use. In this case you'd be personalizing for an average of the husband and the wife, a person who doesn't exist, and not impressing them both.
g) Personalization needs data (if not Big-Data, the buzzier, fuzzier word) and if a lot of your users are new users without a lot of data history, you'll have a cold start problem. By the time you figure out the person's preferences, you may have already pissed him off with irrelevant suggestions

I'm sure a lot of statisticians and coders are working on these angles as we speak, but we have buyers walking in now. What should we do? Any views?

How much Variety is good?

a) a lot?

b) sufficient / enough?
c) too much?
d) any other_____?

It is not as simple as it looks. Sometimes I'm in a hurry and I just want to go right to the counter and pick up my stuff, sometimes I have the time to wallow. That's just me. Sometimes I feel a store isn't even credible if it doesn't have five brands of shirts, and sometimes I get annoyed when the salesperson 'encourages' me to try just one more brand. Imagine being led through a thousand shirt-options, to be told in the end it's not available in your size!! Extremely non-funny, this.

So it is complex, and all this while it's still me. There are other kinds on the planet with their own preferences. Mars and Venus, I  hear, are different. Mission-shopping and Impulse-Shopping is different. Routine and Occasional shopping is different. Variety could satiate or irritate. So is it that complex or are we looking through the wrong lenses?

Maybe yes. What the consumer looks for is availability, when it is mission-shopping and assortment, when impulse-shopping. Variety is the backend lever that leads to availability and assortment. A good retailers knows it is not wise to put your entire assortment on the shelf. I was chatting with an experienced retail CXO recently and he told me about this very interesting incident. Their shoppers complained of low variety, while their SKU count was actually higher than competition. After a drastic reduction in SKU-count, the customers turned around and said now you have variety. Counter-intuitive? Maybe not.

Maybe what gets articulated or captured as variety is simply the ability to find or discover your product.

Don't get me wrong - again - I'm not saying variety is bad, and I'm not saying the buyer wants only one choice (aside - views from Google might be interesting, I really want to know who the search engine impresses with the total number of results and time, and I really want to know how many ever clicked the "I'm feeling lucky" button).

But if we are on the same page, implications are many-fold for retailers and marketplaces. When one is creating the initial assortment, variety adds to the experience and lends credibility. Beyond a point, it could add to confusion. This is super-critical in the online world, where one might feel real estate is free or unlimited, while it is actually not. The first-fold of the homepage is not unlimited space. More important, the buyer's ability to process information and his / her patience is always limited. It could be cool to say I have 247,000 results for your search, but unless we guide the buyer to what (s)he wants or needs, it's just noise. The buyer knows 246,999 out of these results are not what (s)he's looking for, and maybe we're giving him / her more and more of what (s)he's not looking for.

The two broad approaches could be either to curate via a Tailored Shopping Experience (i.e. we as store-owners decide / guess what you need, and show you only that one item you most-probably want, not the endless variety it takes to ensure we find a match) or via decision-aiding tools. Give the user a set of check-boxes and sliders to reduce the 247,000 to just 4 items (s)he can now compare on key attributes.

In a retail store, they lay out some key designs of shoes, in some sizes, in a way that looks most welcoming and least threatening. It will be scary if every size in every design is laid out on a table. You probably realize that's how good offline sales-people work. They just ask the buyer a few initial questions, narrow their eyes, lean back slightly and say, "I think I know what you're looking for", smile, and pull out four shoes you love.

Image courtesy: wallpaperscraft.com