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

The Privilege of a Privileged insight

This nice-sounding word that started doing the rounds a few years back, called Privileged Insight. Everyone from McKinsey to McDonalds was losing sleep over it and all the hot thought leaders were pounding their desks demanding it. This is a cool strategy, but what's our differentiator? What's the one competitive advantage that will remain our advantage? What's our privileged insight about the consumer? What do we know that they don't know?

Now we know that a lot of tough questions don't have answers.

We know what a Privileged Insight means (let's call it Pi for shortness's sake, I'm getting carpel-tunnel-syndrome from typing it each time). And we also know the magic of Pi, how we'll use Pi and how

it'll transform the world. The only thing most of us were unsure of is its existence, more than momentary-fleeting that is.

Now that I've had the fortune to work on emerging industries (like eCommerce, and yes, I know it's emerged to various extent in various countries, but in India it's called emerging or yet to emerge), I've

often hunted for Pi myself. I've sometimes imagined I have it figured, only to lose it again. It troubles me. What can give me the privilege to know any Pi to the last decimal? How do I keep it privileged evenif I do pin it down? I'll not be the only person in the company who knows, and people leave companies and join others. Plus the same customer talks to other companies too. The same research company /researcher talks to others in the game.

Bigger problem, if Pi isn't known, then we market-players have the same insights. Then we should have the same imperatives, the same strategy, right? Not really. Possible, but not necessary.

Sometimes I feel there's something like Pi, even if there's nothing that's 'exactly' Pi. Maybe the difference in my company and the next is not different insights, but the way we use them. Specifically, even if given same / similar insights, we take different punts. That's the difference between 'us' and 'them'. We go and invest in Rural while they invest in the Youth. We build out the smartphone experience while someone else grabs the SMS / feature phone platform. One, or both of us will win, but we'll be different.

Under the same sky, some plant more potatoes and some plant more onions. One of these farmers will make more money and people (including the farmer himself) may think he had this Pi thing figured out. A consultant will convince him, and a management guru will spell it out, it's 3.1415926....

What’s an Emerging Market?

What are emerging markets? Duh - Brazil, Russia, India and China (not in order, clearly), right? Or was it Brazil, India, China since Russia fell off some years back? Or is Russia back again? Or is this version outdated? Does the latest version of this definition contain Indonesia, Vietnam and blah?

Not sure. What we seem to be sure of is that we need a bucket to put emerging markets in. Why? Because they behave differently. Their needs are different, they are yet to evolve but have immense potential (some say population), they need to be invested in (some say spent on), nurtured with a long-term view (/ long breakevens  to be tolerated), and need a radically different approach (/ consultants to be hired). The logic, whatever it is, of having a bucket called Emerging Markets is sound.

The next part about putting the BRIC into that bucket pains me, especially coming from (over)-educated people wearing boring suits and smart glasses. Those four countries are huge animals to squeeze into the same bucket. Again, I get the need to treat emerging markets differently (just like the need to treat a child different from an adolescent to an adult or a geriatric). I just don't think India's one market, or China for that matter. 

I believe any market with a small size and a large growth rate is an emerging market. eCommerce in India could be emerging but Telecom probably isn't emerging anymore. Looks like Telecom's emerged fully, we can see the bottom and the bathwater dripping on the floor. And just for the sake of an example, maybe ayurveda or yoga or khadi in Europe is an emerging market. To my mind the logic of treating all these markets differently makes sense. The logic of treating everything in India, or every business across India, Brazil, Russia and China the same is tougher to get.

Come on, it’s 41% of the World’s population we’re talking about; just India + China is 36%, just for perspective.  

All Indians do not ride elephants (some do, I’ll concede), or charm snakes or work in BPOs or (I heard this recently) use tablets instead of notebooks. We have many different Indians in here. Indian businesses are also different. Snake-charming, elephant-riding is not emerging. Definitely. BPO did emerge but you’re very late to the party, some of us have forgotten the full form and just did a google-search on it to refresh. Only Tablets, as a business from that list could be emerging. 

See the difference?

Loyalty Programs versus Loyalty

What comes to your mind when you think of loyalty? My guess is, one of two very different things. You’ll think either of a loyalty-program (which is really a way of either incentivising repeat purchases or re-activating potential lapsers) or of Harley Davidson. Both, now that you see, are very different from each other. 

The loyalty I’d get through a points program is ‘purchased’ loyalty. You stop giving me points, I stop buying. This ‘loyalty’ is a reward for threatening to be disloyal, for being a bad customer. The Thums-Up or Laphroaig loyalty is not only unlike this but I suspect opposite. I mean if you do start incentivising / paying a Thums-Up guy to drink Thums-Up, he’d hate it. He wants to be seen as the guy who loves his soft-drink and doesn’t compromise. He’d rather drink nothing than drink Coke or Pepsi. He’d hate to be seen as the guy who drinks Thums-Up since he gets a discount. 

The other big(-ger) issue is on withdrawing benefits. Benefits in perpetuity stop making a difference, and temporary benefits leave the consumer with withdrawal symptoms. We’ve all read about the day-care that started monies for parents who picked up their kids late. The percentage of parents coming late increased, and what was worse was when they got rid of the monetary penalty, the percentage increased further. So translating a monetary value back into an emotional value is impossible. 

Moral of the story - it’s tougher, but much much better to start creating emotional loyalty. Get that experience, that taste, that message right. Re-consider what your ‘loyalty’ consultant is telling you. Re-think before you go down that one-way street. I’m not saying points are bad, I’m just saying that it might not solve the loyalty problem. What’s common to Islam, Pink Floyd, Classic Milds, Manchester United, Old Monk and Royal Enfield is that they don’t offer points. And the day they do, they’re no longer on this list.

Post-script, maybe can be split up into another post, is a note on B2B. This is different, please do not confuse that with this. That’s a different ball-game altogether. Employees of a certain company will fly the most expensive airline as long as the company pays their bills, and never for personal trips unless they’re redeeming miles. Some other company will stick with sub-optimal bill plans of some telecom operator as long as one admin / facilities person is really happy with the operator for some reasons. Interesting topic, that one too, clearly not the ‘loyalty’ we’re talking about here, so maybe some other time on that....

How do you fight a suicide bomber?

There’s a term called asymmetric warfare that is commonly used for terrorism. One party in this war (the Government) has to secure all vulnerable points to win, while the other (the Terrorist) has to penetrate just one to win. Naturally, in most cases, the terrorist wins. It is just so much easier.

Of late, I’ve been wondering if we should worry about another similar, though not same, problem. How do you fight competition that wants to blow itself up? You come to the meeting armed with logic, profit and loss, analytics; while this other guy just parts his jacket to show you a string of bombs strapped to his belly. This kind of competition is not rational, or maybe is, but not in your conventional sense. You seek victory while he seeks martyrdom. You seek P&L while he seeks valuation. He’s happy showing a 200% rise in traffic even if he can’t sustain it beyond the year because he hopes to sell some stake within the year (aside, I know the offline guys are giggling here, guess how much traffic we can build at our stores if we sell at a loss :D). Worst, our suicide-bomber will spend till the consumers are so drunk on a cocktail of discounts, cash-on-delivery, coupons, no-questions-unlimited-returns and a variety of unknown ingredients that any rational person can’t persuade them to listen to anything sensible. 

What is worse is that your hope of sanity prevailing is faint. When this particular guy runs out of money, the next free-drinks guy walks in, and till there’s even one joker left in the pack, the suicide bombing continues. Even if someone does it sporadically, you’re done. 

Like the Uncle who walks into your house and spoils your kids on ice-cream, now the businesses are left dealing with irrational expectations of spoilt kids. eCommerce consumers would ideally like everything free, next they’d like to be paid to use eCommerce I guess. Soon we’ll have to send chauffeurs to their homes, with iPads encased in soft blue velvet for the users to tap - all for products with negative contributions. 

If Soft-Drink Giants can agree (unofficially, of course) on pricing for 200ml of soda, why can’t we eCommerce guys have some sanity?

The Escalator Problem

Is stepping on an escalator easy or tough? The answer depends on whether you’ve already been on one. Imagine someone who’s comfortable on escalators (e.g. me) explaining “how to step on an escalator” to someone who’s not (e.g. my Mom) and I’d probably say something like, “you just take a step forward, that’s all - nothing will happen, worst case, just grab the handrail and you will be fine”. and no prizes for guessing how effective this is. 

Doesn’t work.

This is the escalator problem. However, it is not just an escalator problem. I have seen teachers (“maths is easy”) explaining it thus to students (“maths is hard”), and I see it happen every day now on eCommerce. Let’s face it, most of eCommerce is built by techies and not retailers, not consumers. Hence you have this common occurrence of people in the room (“eCommerce is easy”) not being able to figure why the traffic (“eCommerce is tough”) isn’t converting. How many of us working in eCommerce companies have taken efforts to design a site that’s easiest for the first-timer to figure? 

As a first step, we should try and understand the first-timer better. Identifying him / her is easy, researching his / her state is easy, creating a simple flow for, and assisting the first transaction is also easy (remember Microsoft’s paper-clip assistant that us evolved users found irritating? guess what, a lot of newbies loved it). What is not easy is convincing the nerds around the table who’d think this isn’t cool. These guys think it is cool to tell you there are 247,000 results for your search (and ten ways to sort the results), free-shipping is available for some articles and not for others, cash-on-delivery has a minimum limit, T&Cs apply on all these and the personalization engine knows there’s no history for you but is still trying to do a good job and therefore throwing junk at you. Remember the movie-sequences with the waiter asking too many questions, and the customer ends up ordering nothing?