Untitled

This reading reminded me of a number of movements mainly focused on female beauty - body positivity, anti-shaving, black/brown is beautiful - all aimed at combating traditional western ideals of beauty. These movements are slow to gain traction at first, because they run so counter to the engrained perspectives that the ideal woman is tall, thin, fair, and hairless from the neck down. Focusing on body positivity, this is something that is engrained in girls since they are young, flooding our culture with Disney princesses and barbie dolls that have perfect hourglass figures and are described as beautiful. Therefore, how does the movement become powerful enough that we get a princess like Moana, who has a waist proportional to the rest of her body?

These movements are slow at first, and we have to use nudges to slow down people’s thinking - why do we value this? Should we be valuing this? Diet pills, fad diets, and programs like weight watchers have always relied on their aspirational nature (become thin like Jane Fonda or like Britney!) in order to acquire customers, so creating a body positivity movement can gain traction by being similarly aspirational. For example, the rise of plus-sized models, celebrities, and influencers highlights that every body can be beautiful, and that it is enough to be comfortable in one’s own skin without wanting to change things. Similarly, Dark is Beautiful and WOW used Nandita Das to promote their campaign, giving women a role model who could provide a different type of aspiration.

Secondly, companies can get into customer’s heads by vilifying the original standard of beauty and changing their cognitive association with it - not only is black beautiful, are all bodies beautiful, but people who try to lose weight or lighten their skin are portrayed as misguided sell-outs, or worse: bad people. This one can be tricky and can create a lot of backlash, as some potential customers may feel that their identity is under attack. In general, I don’t love negative or antagonistic advertisement (this includes smear ads during elections) as I think it distances customers rather than brings them in. It’s almost as if Sloan tried to attract MBA students from Booth by highlighting how much windier and colder the Chicago winters are, or by hating on deep dish pizza, rather than highlighting all of MIT and Boston’s perks. Instead of telling a customer why they should NOT purchase another product, we can change customers’ cognitive associations over time by slowing down their thinking and forcing them to critically evaluate where their blind spots are coming from.

Rogers' five factors provide a framework for us to determine whether or not a new product idea will be able to gain traction in the market.

As a point-in-time evaluation, this is a useful tool, but we have to take it with a grain of salt as many of these change over time. Additionally, I believe that these factors should not necessarily be viewed in isolation; in my system dynamics class, we have considered how many different variables can build on themselves and each other in order to form complex systems, and that those variables change drastically given the existing conditions. This is especially true when we consider where people fall along the innovation spectrum - different populations will respond to different forces: where an innovator might focus on relative advantage when deciding whether or not to make a purchase, a lagger will place significantly more weight on simplicity and compatibility. Therefore, in order to ensure success we must shift these factors over time.

Replacing complexity with simplicity, we can provide different products a score from 1 (low) to 5 (high) along each of Rogers' five factors to determine whether or not they should be pursued:

PB Slices - maybe, in the right market

PB slices were rated low on relative advantage. It is simple enough to use a knife and peanut butter the bread - if its too hard, you can microwave it 10s to soften the PB and avoid tearing it. It scored low on observability as well: you might see people buying it or packing as a snack, but rarely will see people making sandwich. PB slices scored slightly higher on compatibility, as they might not be compatible with peoples' traditional perspective on peanut butter. However, they are pretty compatible with existing activities, such as eating fruit or assembling a sandwich.

PB slices did score high on both simplicity and trialability. The design, similar to Kraft singles, is simple enough for children to use and is already familiar to consumers. Assuming free samples come back to us, it's also very easy to trial - even if not, should be a cheap enough option that you can buy one pack to see if you like it. I'm not sure if a post-covid would helps or hurts these - on one hand, we are less likely to get free samples, but on the other, people prefer single-use, individually wrapped items, so it may be a good time to launch this product if one can get contracts with lunch box prep services like the one we have at MIT

Collapsible wheel - nope

The collapsible wheel scored the lowest out of the four products. IT has practically no relative advantage over locking a bike up - true, the tire won't get stolen, but now you have to lug around a bike wheel. It's incompatible with existing bikes and requires a different model, so compatibility is low. Additionally, it seems difficult to use, and is likely difficult to fix in the event that it breaks

The wheel scored slightly higher on trialability and observability. At this point, they would be even lower, but as this bike becomes more popular over time it would be easier to try it at a store, or borrow a friend's (though it's so expensive I wouldn't lend mine to anyone). As bike racks are in public spots it would be hard to miss someone collapsing their bike tire. That said, these both require a high enough degree of adoption before they become meaningful.

Stave Puzzle - sure, for a cult following

Personally, this was my favorite product! I am a huge puzzler. Unfortunately, these are too expensive to be trialable (you also can't truly trial them without completing one), and as most puzzlers enjoy their hobby indoors, is not very observable, leading to low marks on both of these criteria. It received high marks on the other three, as it's a very unique take on a simple, familiar concept. One might say that it holds limited advantage over a traditional physical puzzle or brain teaser, but it holds a significant advantage over a traditional puzzle (not to mention these are significantly harder for my dog and nieces to eat)

If Stave is able to make these more affordable, they would become more trialable and better-suited for a larger product market; however, this would cause it to lose its small-town, handmade charm. In reality, it lends itself to a cult following

Polytrack - yes!

This scored the highest of all the products. It received the lowest marks for observability, as it is difficult to distinguish between polytrack and traditional sand. However, tracks that use it are likely to be proud and therefore would have signage or PA announcements at races. In terms of compatibility, it's very similar to the existing sand and should have no issue in replacing it; however, it gets a lower score because of the traditional mindset and the momentum required to shift it. Lastly, it gets a 3 for trialability - in theory one could test it out on other tracks (as a rider/owner) but as a track-owner it would be difficult to do so.

Polytrack received full marks on both remaining criteria. Regarding relative advantage, the main issue is that it is expensive to install, requiring $5M to convert one track - however, the amount saved on horse injuries/euthanizations and the increase in starts that you get from horses means owners might be more willing to pay to enter their horses in races on polytrack tracks, breaking even quickly. In terms of simplicity - it's sand, but better! How hard is that to understand?

Solos glasses (branding project)

Wine purchasing is a fairly cognitive process - there are so many options that it’s hard to pick a bottle. Even friends of mine who consider themselves connoisseurs will spend some time agonizing and deliberating over their decision. However, cognitive associations are an incredibly useful heuristic in narrowing our options right away, and easing our decision fatigue. This is especially true in an industry as diverse as wine, where the top three players only account for 7% of total market share (compared to 25% and 40+% for beer and liquor), and a small nudge can significantly improve a given producer’s chances of making a sale. Major nudges, like the Judgement of Paris and Berlin Tasting, or marketing changes to emphasize the grape type versus location of origin, have resulted in huge disruptions of the field and the significant reduction of biases towards wines from california (and the new world)

It’s interesting to note that not only do these biases impact our choices, they are also aspirational. By associating with a certain brand, we too can take on its characteristics. Let’s say you’re going to dinner with some colleagues and need to select a bottle of wine. Do you want to be classy and chic? Then go for the cheapest Bordeaux, it’s “going to be good no matter what”. Do you want to be bold and unique and daring (and are unafraid of failure)? Maybe try a new, local winery, or those orange wines that are ~trendy~ right now. Are you in a rush, but want something affordable and dependable? Go for a Chilean wine.

Every decision he makes requires careful planning, an abundance of information, and is frankly completely unemotional. My brother doesn't impulse buy, doesn't spend much time on line in fact, and prefers to read vendor specifications over user reviews.

Having worked in e-commerce, I know that my brother is most assuredly *not* the average customer, and can only agree with the article's points that there are 2 things that matter with online shopping: the amount of information/choices and the user reviews. It's important to strike the right balance - not enough, and users won't trust you. Too much, and they get decision fatigue. Nowadays, most sites err on the latter - it's just too easy to add information when you're shopping online. In fact, one of my biggest projects at my prior job was to limit the amount of information and choices that customers were seeing, and identify which pieces had to go.

Here we have a battle of the beers: Heineken, associated with consistency, quality, and European style - you can be cultured but not *too* exotic, trendy but safe in knowing you’ll like what you try. Or you can go for Corona, which is breezy, chill, simple, and straightforward - a beer for young professionals. (Really we should all be drinking Pacifico, the finest non-Corona Modelo beer)

The beer industry was facing some general changes at the time of this case - overall beer consumption was decreasing due to national interest in health, while imports were doubling as American interest in nontraditional options was piqued, allowing both Heineken and Corona to position themselves as “premium” brands.

Corona branded itself as the easy, no-fuss nonsense - its simple bottle (largely unchanged from its domestic packaging) made consumers feel like they were getting a more authentic Mexican experience. Ads like “fun sun and beach” or “cross the border” were filmed in Mexico and focused on vacations, allowing consumers to feel a sense of escapism when they drank Corona. Additionally, Corona was able to capitalize on the “corona and lime” trend and distinguish itself from other beers - something that we see in its ads even today (I would in fact argue that the Corona+Lime is the brand’s true image - I’m not sure what the actual logo is). Lastly, Corona was able to maintain a consistent image and marketing strategy for a long time, ensuring that these associations were really burned into consumer’s minds for an entire generation

Heineken on the other hand, was facing some macro difficulties: the revaluation of the guilder caused imports to decline in the face of a weaker dollar, and the rapidly growing hispanic population had a greater affinity for Corona than a European brand like Heineken (note that this issue is somewhat lessened by the lower purchasing power of hispanic Americans). Additionally, there were some operational challenges to keeping beer fresh, it being more expensive to produce in and ship from the Netherlands versus Mexico. Heineken had pursued very little marketing efforts, believing that “just being the best is enough”. Faced with Corona’s rapid expansion, they had to take this perspective and brand themselves as a premium beer, emphasizing the quality and consistency of their product.