Product Behavior

Who at Brooks Brothers thought it was a good idea to open a branch in the waiting area of an airport. How does it enhance their old-school, classic, tailored image to hang around the likes of Hudson News?

Often, it’s suggested by either my client or a colleague that we talk to “leading-edge” consumers instead of just average consumers. Except sometimes the suggestion is “extreme” consumers. Is there a difference between “leading-edge” and “extreme” consumers?

Exactly where a product falls on the “Love It / Solves It” axes depends on what it means for a particular consumer to “love” a particular product, and on what it means for that product so “solve” a consumer’s problem. Any change to the product (and the way it is marketed) may move the product in any direction.

Characterizing what goes into a purchase decision is, I’m guessing, the most important thing a company can do. Why does anyone buy anything? There are lots of ways to talk about it, but the one I’m enjoying these days, I call the “Love It / Solve It” chart.

The idea is this: In order for me to buy a product, it must both solve my problem, to some extent, and I must love it, to some extent. Exactly how much a product must solve and how much I must love before I’ll by are related to each other along some curve. If a product is above and to-the-right of the curve, as the star is, I’ll by. Below the curve, and no dice.

Must business growth mean “do more of everything”? Why do companies seem to believe that the only way to extend their value is to do everything they can, in every direction?

I’ve written a bit about Starbucks before, about how, over time, the unique Starbucks experience has become watered down to the point that it’s no longer special. Today, though, I was struck by several further dilutions of whatever it is Starbucks thinks it is.