In reading an October 2004 post from Business Week on-line titled “Nike’s New Public Studio – where consumers become designers”, I quickly reflected on what innovation truly meant to myself and to the best of my ability what I thought it meant to other people. I pondered on the role consumers played in the innovation process and how their reaction to a new innovative product ultimately determined how that product was viewed.What I did realize after awhile is that there are various tastes and preferences that certain unique groups of people have and that a truly innovative product usually impacts a wider group. Take for example how innovative Apple’s ipod has been over the last few years. Sure enough the tape and CD walkman, MP3 player were innovative products but none of these had the level of impact to both consumers and suppliers that the ipod had. The ipod through iTunes also had a snowball effect on the music recording industry by providing another outlet for specific and select sales.
In defining innovation which is popularly viewed as “groundbreaking technology” it is important to note that not all “innovative” products are successful. So with this what exactly is innovation? I searched on Google and came up with this definition:
“The test of an innovation is whether it creates value. Innovation means the creation of new value and new satisfaction for the customer”.
Does this definition then mean that a product is innovative only if the customer wants it and thinks it is? But then again, how many companies roll-out a series of innovations on an existing successful product that transform that successful product into something unrecognizable and undesirable by the customer? An easy example of the Volkswagon Phaeton comes to mind on this…
Nike (through NikeiD) and IBM (free use of supercomputers to certain users) are examples of companies trying to test product innovation in the market. Remember that consumers are a company’s market….why not have them indirectly through a sharing of ideas, analysis, etc tell you what they want?
3 comments:
I completely agree that companies need to get back to the consumer (though that seems terribly obvious). I think it was my marketing professor who said something to the effect that "successful companies are those that provide consumers with a product/service they never knew they needed." Nike, for example, had allowed celebrities/athletes to create customized shoes for years, but now with NikeID, they've opened that option to the general public. Not only does this classify them as innovative, it's also a logical move in terms of today's unique fashion sensibilities. I think successful companies are those that are constantly engaged and have a finger on the pulse of their consumer base - slack off even a bit, and you're likely to fail or at least generate a lot of internet animosity (Verizon, anyone?).
I am loving this concept of consumer-driven innovation. Now there are even companies that specialize in bringing creative & innovative consumers together with organizations, such as Sandbox International - http://www.sandboxintl.com/ .
I agree with you to a certain extent. Customers dont always know what they want so some figure out what they want when they see another person with the item or product. The example of the Volkswagon Phaeton, I can see what Volkswagon was trying to do. That car was suppose to be the average persons version of the Audi A8 but what Volkswagon did not for see was that the Audi A8 was so expensive that most people who could afford that car would go and buy a mercedes or BMW. This type of imitation worked well with the Chrysler 300 which people thought it looked like the Bentley so they went and bought it. Companies do need to be more engaged with their consumers so that they can actually keep producing products that will sell. This will help sustain themselves in the market.
Post a Comment