tumblkabs-blog

[tumblkabs-blog]

The Sorting Hat isn’t just hurting the pitcher; it’s hurting the catcher, and really all of us, too.

Disclaimer: this is a bit off topic but it’s what stuck with me the most in this week’s reading on How to Pitch a Brilliant Idea. The article adeptly identifies a common phenomena not just in the creative world, but really in every facet of life - life moves fast and people are really quick to rely on stereotypes to classify and asses a person. The article highlights three “types of people” that really resonate with evaluative audiences in a creative setting where they are pitching an idea. The article is helpful in identifying attributes that define those three types, and gives potential pitchers in creative settings an idea how they can mold their pitch to identify with one of these personas. While some may argue that it is encouraging “pitchers” to conform but I think its more of a tool that helps to address a known truth and reality in life: relying on stereotypes is like the human version of scaling interpersonal interactions and decisions, and frankly it’s inevitable. 

But something that I think goes hand in hand with stereotypes, particularly in settings where “pitchers” are presenting business ideas, that can and desperately needs to be eliminated is unconscious survival bias when considering new ideas. And I want to focus on how it really hurts everyone involved by focusing on the broken ways in which we fund entrepreneurs. There are a billion start up ideas out there, and only so much capital that has the appetite to fund early stage companies - it’s that mismatch that makes the industry so interesting, competitive, and ultimately asymmetric. So the VCs and Angel Investors of the world are inundated with opportunities seeking funding - they can’t reasonably evaluate each one with rigor and diligence. But they are the ones with the checkbooks and power, and the ultimately decide what will become a viable venture, and what won’t. So they rely on mental models and frameworks and tight-knit networks to weed out ideas along the way -- these mental models and frameworks are analogous to the concept of the three personas described in the case. Snap judgements are made to classify opportunities on a spectrum of factors, and the more that the opportunity resonates with the “catcher”, the better the entrepreneur’s odds are. And these mental models not only apply to the actual business idea at hand, but also to the person doing the pitching. If business X looks like Spotify, or entrepreneur Y could be Mark Zuckerberg’s twin, they are much more likely to receive funding.

There are a number of folks in the industry who are quick to point out that, yes, while things like Uber have completely disrupted the way we go about life, there are a litany of other issues, arguably more pressing issues on a societal level, that are being overlooked because everyone is in pursuit of building or funding the next Uber or AirBnb, and very few can expand their mental model to entertain the idea that success is not uniformly defined by a $1B valuation or a founder who just graduated from MIT or the next “unique” grocery delivery system. There is too much noise and fear for people to say “hey, this founder isn’t a computer science major in a hoodie, and they aren’t claiming to be building the next Facebook, and they don’t live in Silicon Valley, and they weren’t a Kleiner Perkins referral, but their idea can really revolutionize the way that farmers can monitor issues with their crops in real time.” Not quite as sexy as black cars whisking you away on demand, but it’s still really meaningful stuff. But we associate success with the Ubers and Snapchats, or the Showrunners or Artists, of the world because they have succeeded and survived, and to hedge against the inherent risk, we need to find a similar but slightly different and equally as innovative business model - we default to survivor bias. 

But in doing so, we’re just missing out on a lot. We’re missing out on creating inclusive and efficiency economies by funding business models that tackle issues that extend beyond consumer convenience innovation, we’re creating dead weight loss through market failures, we’re failing perfectly good entrepreneurs and rewarding perfectly inept entrepreneurs based on their adherence to our mental models, and we’re actually stifling innovation in the pursuit of a uniform definition of “innovation”. We can use the sorting hat to help derive patterns and frameworks to create order in the system, but we stand to do ourselves an incredible disservice if we let them define the system, and we let the past dictate what will work in the future. 

[tumblkabs-blog]

Capitalizing on expanding society’s fissures vs. filling them: Dark is Beautiful & Like A Girl

In the case of Fair & Lovely vs. Dark is Beautiful, we see an example of people mobilizing to confront a marketing campaign that actively exploits consumers in an industry that has the power to tell you what you should look like, and what is defined as attractive. Particularly within the cosmetics and beauty industry, this type of behavior is pretty ubiquitous, and major players in the industry drive company value from their ability to capitalize individuals’ insecurities as they pertain to health, beauty and appearance. This is not necessarily nefarious, as we’ve seen great examples of many companies do this in a way that is empowering to and supportive of individuals on their quest to become better versions of themselves. However, the story of Fair & Lovely seems to be less about empowerment and more about convincing people to embark on a never-ending quest to achieve a certain “look” that is tied to discrimination is and unnaturally unsustainable.

The momentum behind Dark is Beautiful is certainly inspiring, particularly as it is spearheaded by people who recognize the influence they can have on changing societal norms based on their positioning within that culture and society. But it’s also commendable to see when companies step into the role of equality-promoter by using their platform to actively bring attention to societal imbalances. To me, a particularly poignant example of this is Always’ Like a Girl campaign.

Always leverages an age-old adage used primarily to insult males by saying that they do something, “like a girl.” One of the most classic examples of this is when Porter from The Sandlot hurtles this insult at the opposing team of 9 year-old boys; their reaction is genuinely appalled. As the only girl in a family of brothers, growing up doing anything that resulted in them telling me I was doing it like a girl was about the worst thing I could have been told, despite me even being, in fact, a girl.

But Always turns this adage on its head by asking young girls to do different things, “like a girl”, and the revelation is that these young girls think of running or fighting or dancing just like any young boy would, and with fearless and unconstrained determination. The campaign focuses on the impact of the limitations posed on girls over the course of their lives as a result of phrases like, “like a girl”. Even the adult women interviewed imposed some sort of “stereotypical” lens on their actions - that is how engrained it is within our culture and across genders.

It’s important to note and recognize two things. 1) There are really stark differences between the issues at hand and the the corresponding campaigns to address them - I want to be cognizant of the sensitivities around each, 2)  Both of these campaigns are driven by the commercial interests of the company - at its core, that’s really the point of marketing and branding. But in the case of Always, it’s cool to see the good that can be enforced when a company recognizes they role they can play, and the value they can create for themselves and their consumers, when they’re able to align their business objective with messaging that helps to empower, not to devalue.

[tumblkabs-blog]

Burberry: A Branded House or  House of Cards?

In the 2000′s, the mass proliferation of the Burberry check was truly unchecked. The symbolism was iconic, and anyone who encountered the check print, whether in its original taupe color or a spring-time variation, on a key-chain or a pair of paints, knew exactly where that item originated, or better yet, what that item was trying to mimic in the event of counterfeit. No need for it to say Burberry anywhere - the print spoke for itself. Its positioning defined intersection: luxury, but more attainable; steward of an era past but beloved by a range of contemporary celebrities and influencers. 

But Burberry was smart to recognize that there was indeed a balancing game at hand, and that their success had placed them in a precarious situation that required a tactical approach to accommodating the many different sub-markets and consumer segments that comprise their customers. While possession of a Burberry checked item in any form was viewed as aspirational and symbolic for some consumers, its prevalence also diluted the status of the symbol for others. Burberry was strategic in lending its brand symbol to a range of products and items in order to capture more market share, but the line has to be drawn somewhere (and a good starting point would be to commend them on never creating Burberry patterned toilet paper). 

In thinking about brand architecture, their hybrid model of a house of brands as well as a brand of houses allowed them in many ways to continue capturing those for whom the visible representation of the brand was important, as well as those to whom the check did not appeal or who wanted more than just the check by creating a more variable line of apparel that was void of the checked symbol. This variable line also helped them to retain their iconic offerings while capitalizing on the fact that people will only buy so many trench coats in a year, but they will buy other apparel and are likely motivated by their existing brand loyalty. 

Despite their success, standing in an intersection is still a precarious place to be, particular in the world of luxury fashion that is so dependent on consumer perception as it relates to status. In a somewhat counterintuitive thought, too much brand appeal and attainment in this instance can be harmful, and that is the risk that Burberry’s Branded House strategy confronts. This is particularly relevant to note in this day and age when there seems to be an overall shift towards de-branding of luxury goods. 

As symbols like Burberry’s became almost ubiquitous, consumers of luxury goods began to prefer items that were not visibly branded. Whereas in-groups used to be defined by checked patterns or the classic interlocking C’s, some in-groups now are defined by those who are able to recognize and appreciate a luxury good without explicitly being told what it is. In this case, instead of the observable declaration that comes from visible branding, affirmation of status takes on almost a secret language of mutual understanding and covert recognition. While there likely will always be a segment who prefers the overt expression as an owner of the brand, Burberry will have to continue delivering solutions that capture that market while not alienating those for whom luxury is now synonymous with subtlety. Careless execution of this can end poorly - just ask Ralph Lauren. 

[tumblkabs-blog]

Singapore Airlines: Do Less

While Singapore Airlines clearly has crushed it up until 2001 in terms of delivering the pinnacle of airline customer service, they stand at a point of inflection with regards to their ability to sustain their customer-centric strategy, and the costs associated with it, going forward. Their initial ability to deliver this level of customer service was built upon advantageous factors that are no longer relevant, such as cheap labor costs and favorable regulation. They now find themselves in a highly competitive market where top-notch service is not just about the always pleasant interactions with personnel on board and the basic amenities such as food and drinks, but also now extends the physical attributes that define a customers experience on board, which is a much more capital-intensive adjustment to make across an entire fleet of aircraft. 

But keeping up with the Joneses is a dangerous game to play in any aspect of life, and that applies to competitive forces within the airline industry as well. While there is a strong case for the second mover advantage in following BA’s lead in installing these new and improved reclining seats in their business class cabin, SIA’s management is right to pause and ask the question regarding capital investments in updating planes: where do you draw the line? 

The answer is right here. At a time when consumer confidence in flying is shaken following an unspeakable tragedy, the more prudent decision is to focus on continuing to improve the customer experience not through bells & whistles, but through their continued commitment to high-touch, quality customer service. While customers certainly appreciate their level of comfort on the aircraft, their seat is actually a stagnant component of their experience, and there are other low-cost ways to provide dynamic and sequential upgrades to their experience (like announcing that there is a colonial woman on the wing. jk.). 

There are also considerable concerns around the cannibalization of the first class tickets and revenues as a result of installing reclining seats in Raffles Class. There is no point in creating customer segments if the lines between the segments are not clear and defined. 

It is helpful to discuss the rationale for the recommendation against installing the spacebed from the vantage point of the factors discussed in the article on behavioral science. There are two key factors that have strong application to the service model instituted by Singapore Airlines: Finish Strong & Give People Rituals. 

As noted, the end of the customer experience is the most impactful. Even if a person can fully recline in their chair from the minuted they get on the plane, that benefit definitely will be overshadowed by the moment when the flight attendant knocks them upside the head with the coffee cart thirty minutes before landing because their head fell two centimeters into the aisle. On the flip side, maybe the added benefit of having the baggage claim retrieval process expedited to help you in those final 30 minutes of airline experience outweighs the fact that your seat only reclines 75% of the way, and not 100%.

Furthermore, I think it’s safe to say that most people find at least one aspect of flying to be a harrowing experience. The importance of rituals and baseline expectations for how that experience should go versus how it often does go is an important thing for the airline industry to understand. Again, the point is that a reclining chair will not make up for the fact that a customer’s experience is well below what they perceive to be normal. Singapore Airlines has mastered the customer experience in a way that honors this preference for ritual by delivering consistently excellent customer service.

[tumblkabs-blog]

What makes a product diffuse?

This week’s case drew interesting parallels between people’s love of smells and the word diffuse - as much as I love a good scent diffuser, I staunchly oppose a world in which my computer can generate smells. So which of the featured four products are most likely to actually diffuse?

The case featured an interesting mix of products that ranged in the advancement of their technology and innovation, presenting four novel solutions that varied wildly in objective and target market. In full disclosure, XM/Sirius was the only product for which I knew the outcome, which could indicate the (lack of) success of the following three, or my positioning outside of the target markets. 

My assessment of the potential for diffusion for each of them are as follows: 1) Individually-wrapped peanut butter slices - truly the best thing since and for sliced bread. To me, this is a prime example of a low-tech, innovative enhancement in an existing market - maybe it won’t disrupt an entire market in the way that Uber has, but it has the potential to gain traction within a particular customer segment -- the operative point being that it will only be attractive to a select demographic. For time-strapped moms, attention-strapped kids, and self-sufficiency-strapped students, this is a much-needed and appreciated solution. It reminds me in a way of when they invented squeezable jam. However, there is a large population who find things like Kraft Singles and squeezable jam to be abhorrent -- they are justified in feeling that, and likely won’t be prime consumers. While the innovation is strong, I don’t necessarily see this product surviving as a stand-alone brand. I see this as a potential acquisition for an existing major player.  2) Silver-infused bandaids - While the technology and benefits appear logical, this feels like too advanced of a consumer solution in an already crowded market. Again, this could be an issues of being outside the purview of the target demographic -- in all honesty I could not tell you the last time I purchased bandaids or sought any form of medical attention, but I’m aware of all the the different forms of water-proof, anti-bacterial variations of Band-Aids. So, if I was concerned about an injury to the extent that I believed a silver-coated bandaid would prevent me from infection in a way that good ol’ hydrogen peroxide and a regular bandage wouldn’t, I probably would just go to a doctor. I don’t know if the average consumer is a) that aware of the health benefits of silver or b) really feels like she would benefit from the incremental costs/preventative measures relative to alternative existing products. 

3) XM/Sirius Radio - The outcome of this new product group is obviously well-known, so it’s hard to eliminate confirmation bias and is easy to say that, if I had read the article in real-time, I would have thought it was a fantastic new product that would be successful in diffusing. There is so much more selection and customer-specific options that cater to lovers of music, live concerts, news, talkshows, comedy, etc. It also solves the issue of limitations to radio ranges that are frustrating pain point for many long-haul drivers.  4) Computer-generated scents - who is dying to bring scent into their web-browsing experience and why? To me, authenticity is a key part of scents and the impact that they have on people. Scent is a trigger of nostalgia and has strong sensory impact on the brain, but I do not fully buy that it can be replicated via computer-generated smells. The case drew parallels between downloading images and downloading scents, but the difference is that a) images can be contained to your personal computer while scents penetrate the surrounding area, and 2) when you’re done with the image, you minimize it. The case addressed this but I don’t believe that there won’t be some weird amalgamation of smells that accumulate over time. Good luck sitting at Starbucks mixing in the scents of your grandmother’s beef stew with coffee and not having people yell at you.