I had always just considered marketing classes to be about the 4 Ps – price, promotion, place, and product. Topics were always geared at developing the marketing mix to effectively communicate your products and services to the consumer. I didn’t really have a conception of what the utility of customer insights would be, but after taking this course, I now really feel like the power of insight is something to be reckoned with! It’s a way of thinking and solving customer needs that I had never thought about before. Of course, the idea of developing products and services based on customer insights is nothing new or innovative to me, but I just never considered the practical use of it. I really enjoyed the different angle that this course took – using what we know about marketing (i.e. segmentation, targeting, brand positioning, marketing research) to develop a product. I consider it almost like reverse engineering. In my other marketing classes, we have always taken a product, studied its features and qualities, and then cut up our market. This class we did the exact opposite – we took a segment, researched them, and then developed a product for that market. I liked this method because we were able to see problems during different phases that we might have never been exposed to in other marketing classes. The overall experience in customer insights was definitely a different one that I feel I probably wouldn’t have gotten in other classes.
The guest presentation that I enjoyed the most was definitely prototyping. I thought it was fascinating to see the process of how people turn an idea into a feasible and realistic model of what the actual product would look like. Often times in marketing, we only get to work with concepts, models, and strategies. However, prototyping was a cool way to add some tangibility to our ideas and strategies. What I really remember most about the presentation was that prototyping does not have to be perfect, or even functional. I guess I’ve always had this preconceived notion that when people come up with ideas, their first sample. What I’ve learned is that it’s a gradual process and your product will almost certainly NOT be the way the final product looks. The most important aspect of prototyping is just communicating the idea and adding a measure of tangibility to it. Our prototype was by no means anything like I had envisioned in my head. However, after going through the process of presenting it and explaining its features, I felt like the prototype was an adequate medium for conveying the purpose of our product, as well as adequate for showing how our product relates to the insights that we found.
As you are probably well aware of, I had quite the emotional experience with my team during the course of the project. When it came down to turning our insights and research into an actual product, I deviated from the other group members and came up with an idea that I thought was superior. This of course caused conflict and I was generally unhappy about our product. However, after I finally agreed to just let it go and got on board with the rest of the group, it turns out that the project was pretty good. Our product met all of the criteria set forth by the project, and we were able to create a prototype that accurately represented what we wanted our product to be. Now even though I still think that the other option was better, I learned that sometimes it’s just better to agree with the group and not cause as much conflict as I did. That’s not to say that one should never voice their opinions if they are valid, but when they begin to impede the progress of the group rather than expand the ideas being exchanged, it’s best to swallow your pride and make lemon-aide when life gives you lemons.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Monday, November 19, 2007
A Proposal for the expansion of HEB
The formatting for the outline is all messed up so please follow this link to get my outline for my paper.
https://webspace.utexas.edu/csw347/Customer%20Insights%20Paper.doc?uniq=-1ylj70
Background: This is a proposal and analysis for potential expansion for HEB grocers using pricing and branding insights.
https://webspace.utexas.edu/csw347/Customer%20Insights%20Paper.doc?uniq=-1ylj70
Background: This is a proposal and analysis for potential expansion for HEB grocers using pricing and branding insights.
Monday, November 12, 2007
It's all in your head.
Just like Freud believed, Rapaille believes that many of our actions and decisions are rooted in subconscious associations with particular words, products, emotions, and feelings (Minus the whole sex and anal aspect). According to Rapaille, people formulate these subconscious associations at a very early age, or whenever they are first exposed to the stimulus. Neurologically, this makes sense to me because your brain is always forming connections within itself, linking different parts of the brains with different neurons and synapses as stimuli are introduced. These associations stay engrained in your brain permanently and cannot unlink themselves. I’ve always thought that combining science, whether it is psychology, neurology, or whatever, with marketing and decision making would prove to be an effective combination. I don’t understand why it’s not utilized more frequently than it is, but then again, the process of integrating technical science into marketing research can be lengthy and costly.
Three different levels of the brain affect the way humans think, react, and make decisions. The cortex governs our intelligence and logical functions – that is, everything that we rationally and consciously do. The limbic system controls our emotions and includes structures that help us form spatial relations, long term memory, and carry out autonomic functions such as hunger, thirst, and sexual arousal. The final system that controls how we operate is probably the oldest element of the evolution of our brain: the reptilian brain. True to the name, the reptilian brain controls our most basic instincts – the need to eat, to find shelter, to reproduce, and in general, the need to survive. So what does this have to do with marketing? Well, while humans may be the most evolved (if you do believe in evolution) and rationally capable animals… we are still just those… animals. Not all of our actions are guided by rational thought, or even by emotion. Our brains are so complex and utilize so many different structures and parts that it is hard to say what governs our actual decision making. For example, say someone asks why I prefer Kraft cheese over Sargento cheese. My rational answer is that the taste is better. While this may be a perfectly warranted and accurate response, the real reason that drives the purpose might be much deeper than this. It may reside in my emotions, my subconscious, or even a combination of the two. The better question to ask is: Why do I prefer the taste? While Rapaille’s point is that there is a subconscious and often logically irrational buzz word that ultimately affects the purchase decision, I am trying to illustrate that his conjectures definitely have some merit from a physiological standpoint.
Once I understood the rationale behind his research, I found the experiments he conducted to be ingenious. First, get everybody on the same page and in the same train of thought by exposing the consistency in people’s logical thought process. Then, take away that comfort of consistency in challenging people to illustrate a point in a way that they are not used to thinking (explaining it to a 5 year old). Finally, minimize cortex stimulation in order to amplify the use of the limbic as well as reptilian systems of the brain. It appears that Rapaille has done some amazing research in this field, and I think other people can take a hint from his successes. Although let’s not get carried away in all of this talk about the subconscious and forget what makes humans human… our rationale.
Three different levels of the brain affect the way humans think, react, and make decisions. The cortex governs our intelligence and logical functions – that is, everything that we rationally and consciously do. The limbic system controls our emotions and includes structures that help us form spatial relations, long term memory, and carry out autonomic functions such as hunger, thirst, and sexual arousal. The final system that controls how we operate is probably the oldest element of the evolution of our brain: the reptilian brain. True to the name, the reptilian brain controls our most basic instincts – the need to eat, to find shelter, to reproduce, and in general, the need to survive. So what does this have to do with marketing? Well, while humans may be the most evolved (if you do believe in evolution) and rationally capable animals… we are still just those… animals. Not all of our actions are guided by rational thought, or even by emotion. Our brains are so complex and utilize so many different structures and parts that it is hard to say what governs our actual decision making. For example, say someone asks why I prefer Kraft cheese over Sargento cheese. My rational answer is that the taste is better. While this may be a perfectly warranted and accurate response, the real reason that drives the purpose might be much deeper than this. It may reside in my emotions, my subconscious, or even a combination of the two. The better question to ask is: Why do I prefer the taste? While Rapaille’s point is that there is a subconscious and often logically irrational buzz word that ultimately affects the purchase decision, I am trying to illustrate that his conjectures definitely have some merit from a physiological standpoint.
Once I understood the rationale behind his research, I found the experiments he conducted to be ingenious. First, get everybody on the same page and in the same train of thought by exposing the consistency in people’s logical thought process. Then, take away that comfort of consistency in challenging people to illustrate a point in a way that they are not used to thinking (explaining it to a 5 year old). Finally, minimize cortex stimulation in order to amplify the use of the limbic as well as reptilian systems of the brain. It appears that Rapaille has done some amazing research in this field, and I think other people can take a hint from his successes. Although let’s not get carried away in all of this talk about the subconscious and forget what makes humans human… our rationale.
Monday, November 5, 2007
In the Zone
Not to beat around the bush too long, but Michael Shermer says that humans tend to convince ourselves to believe: We overvalue the "hits" that support our beliefs, and discount the more numerous "misses." This represents the core of his argument. People will see the things that affirm certain beliefs, ideals, and biases, while at the same time, they will choose not to see the things that affirm the opposite.
I believe that this is a fundamental principal that guides human action. Everything that we do, everything that we think, and every reaction we have is a product of our preconceived individual beliefs. Humans are very one-track minded and will easily conform to the preconceived notions that they already have. I see this every day, but I don’t completely understand why this is so. At a deeper level, I think it has to do with a person’s desire to not stray away from their comfort zone. Everybody has a zone of comfort in whatever they do, whether it be in talking about religion, meeting new people, or trying to determine how the Earth rotates. Introverts have a differing level of comfort in social surroundings than extroverts. Imagine that a devout Catholic who was raised to believe in everything about Catholicism has a conversation with an atheist. The atheist provides undeniable proof that Catholicism is flawed and that the beliefs that this person has held for his or her entire life is based on a lie. How do you think that this person is going to take it? I don’t know for sure, but probably not very well. He or she will dispute the evidence and self-rationalize to a point that puts them back into their comfort zone. Most people do the things that keep them in the zone, and try to avoid all the things that take them out. This logic may not always hold true, but I think it’s reasonable to assume that humans like to live their lives in their comfort zone.
This concept can be useful for understanding people’s choices in making purchases. How far are people willing to go out of their zone for certain products? What kind of qualities or aspects of the product do people relate to, and what qualities put them in their comfort zone? Knowing this can be incredibly valuable for marketers because they can really target what people want in a product or service. If you keep them in the zone that they want to be in, then you have a repeat customer.
Another interesting point that Shermer brought up was that people are easily persuaded by the power of suggestion. I saw all of his examples that he put up and I thought they were pretty interesting when I saw how the crowd responded to the slides and clips he used, especially the Led Zeppelin example. People heard the word Satan in the reversed playing of the song, but I don’t think many were convinced that this song was actually a satanic song. However, when he put up the lyrics, I bet he had a lot of people convinced that the song was about worshipping the almighty Lucifer. This leads me to the conclusion that people will easily give into ideas if they are unfamiliar with what is put in front of them. I think it’s natural for people to be inquisitive about things that they don’t know about, but our society has created people that think it’s bad to not know something, so in an effort to feel like they understand (being knowledgeable and understanding is a natural zone of comfort for anyone), they accept and believe what they see.
I believe that this is a fundamental principal that guides human action. Everything that we do, everything that we think, and every reaction we have is a product of our preconceived individual beliefs. Humans are very one-track minded and will easily conform to the preconceived notions that they already have. I see this every day, but I don’t completely understand why this is so. At a deeper level, I think it has to do with a person’s desire to not stray away from their comfort zone. Everybody has a zone of comfort in whatever they do, whether it be in talking about religion, meeting new people, or trying to determine how the Earth rotates. Introverts have a differing level of comfort in social surroundings than extroverts. Imagine that a devout Catholic who was raised to believe in everything about Catholicism has a conversation with an atheist. The atheist provides undeniable proof that Catholicism is flawed and that the beliefs that this person has held for his or her entire life is based on a lie. How do you think that this person is going to take it? I don’t know for sure, but probably not very well. He or she will dispute the evidence and self-rationalize to a point that puts them back into their comfort zone. Most people do the things that keep them in the zone, and try to avoid all the things that take them out. This logic may not always hold true, but I think it’s reasonable to assume that humans like to live their lives in their comfort zone.
This concept can be useful for understanding people’s choices in making purchases. How far are people willing to go out of their zone for certain products? What kind of qualities or aspects of the product do people relate to, and what qualities put them in their comfort zone? Knowing this can be incredibly valuable for marketers because they can really target what people want in a product or service. If you keep them in the zone that they want to be in, then you have a repeat customer.
Another interesting point that Shermer brought up was that people are easily persuaded by the power of suggestion. I saw all of his examples that he put up and I thought they were pretty interesting when I saw how the crowd responded to the slides and clips he used, especially the Led Zeppelin example. People heard the word Satan in the reversed playing of the song, but I don’t think many were convinced that this song was actually a satanic song. However, when he put up the lyrics, I bet he had a lot of people convinced that the song was about worshipping the almighty Lucifer. This leads me to the conclusion that people will easily give into ideas if they are unfamiliar with what is put in front of them. I think it’s natural for people to be inquisitive about things that they don’t know about, but our society has created people that think it’s bad to not know something, so in an effort to feel like they understand (being knowledgeable and understanding is a natural zone of comfort for anyone), they accept and believe what they see.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Prepaid Debit Cards
Prepaid Debit Cards – An Unknown Insight
I interned over the summer with a local Austin company called NetSpend, who is in the business of issuing and maintaining prepaid debit cards. I was reluctant to accept the internship at first, which was in the marketing department, because I was unsure of what exactly it was the company did. Eventually, I found out that prepaid debit cards provided the plastic solution for Americans without bank accounts. What a great idea… I wonder why I’ve never heard of it. Surprisingly, at least 12 million households in the country operate their finances without a bank account, and estimates soar as high as 40 million once non-naturalized immigrants and those with no credit are accounted for. The figure represents nearly 13% of the current US population as a potential market.
When I started, I was surprised to find out that the entire marketing department consisted of 8 people. The industry is relatively new (no recognizable market or product older than 15 years) so the channels of operation and methods of distribution are still being worked out. Compared to the credit card and banking industry, it’s still very primitive. However, the marketing department at NetSpend had established customer profiles, program-based market segmentation, and specific channel-based partners to sell the products. Getting back to my anecdote, it was interesting to see how such a large, mass-used product like prepaid debit cards could go under my radar for the past 5 or 6 years, especially as I have become more cognizant of real-world finances. The marketing department primarily works with cash-checking retailers, payday loan services, and currency exchange to push the prepaid debit cards into the market. Those in, and those not in the market for prepaid debit cards primarily differ in their economic statuses. People in the market for this product commonly have low incomes, work hourly-based service jobs, and rely on check-cashers to finance their day-to-day spending.
No wonder I hadn’t ever heard of this before… I’m nowhere close to being in the market for this kind of product. Still, after learning how wide-scale the distribution of this product is, I still think it’s odd that they were unknown to me. It’s intriguing to see that a segmentation that is so simple and so broad like income levels can create such a stark dichotomy between those who are in or out of your market. By operating within the one service that their target market commonly uses, check-cashers, allows them to sell their product to each and every one of their ideal customers, while minimizing marketing and operations cost by limiting their channels of operation.
The insight that I’m getting at is that customer segmentation, even in its most basic form, is a powerful tool for maximizing operation efficiency and minimizing costs. This leads me to wonder how many other products there are out there that serve a mass market that I am completely unaware of.
I interned over the summer with a local Austin company called NetSpend, who is in the business of issuing and maintaining prepaid debit cards. I was reluctant to accept the internship at first, which was in the marketing department, because I was unsure of what exactly it was the company did. Eventually, I found out that prepaid debit cards provided the plastic solution for Americans without bank accounts. What a great idea… I wonder why I’ve never heard of it. Surprisingly, at least 12 million households in the country operate their finances without a bank account, and estimates soar as high as 40 million once non-naturalized immigrants and those with no credit are accounted for. The figure represents nearly 13% of the current US population as a potential market.
When I started, I was surprised to find out that the entire marketing department consisted of 8 people. The industry is relatively new (no recognizable market or product older than 15 years) so the channels of operation and methods of distribution are still being worked out. Compared to the credit card and banking industry, it’s still very primitive. However, the marketing department at NetSpend had established customer profiles, program-based market segmentation, and specific channel-based partners to sell the products. Getting back to my anecdote, it was interesting to see how such a large, mass-used product like prepaid debit cards could go under my radar for the past 5 or 6 years, especially as I have become more cognizant of real-world finances. The marketing department primarily works with cash-checking retailers, payday loan services, and currency exchange to push the prepaid debit cards into the market. Those in, and those not in the market for prepaid debit cards primarily differ in their economic statuses. People in the market for this product commonly have low incomes, work hourly-based service jobs, and rely on check-cashers to finance their day-to-day spending.
No wonder I hadn’t ever heard of this before… I’m nowhere close to being in the market for this kind of product. Still, after learning how wide-scale the distribution of this product is, I still think it’s odd that they were unknown to me. It’s intriguing to see that a segmentation that is so simple and so broad like income levels can create such a stark dichotomy between those who are in or out of your market. By operating within the one service that their target market commonly uses, check-cashers, allows them to sell their product to each and every one of their ideal customers, while minimizing marketing and operations cost by limiting their channels of operation.
The insight that I’m getting at is that customer segmentation, even in its most basic form, is a powerful tool for maximizing operation efficiency and minimizing costs. This leads me to wonder how many other products there are out there that serve a mass market that I am completely unaware of.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Paralysis
My thoughts on being paralyzed.
I agree with Schwartz when he says that too much choice paralyzes a consumer. However, I think he fails to distinguish this idea on a very important level. If I’m searching for a pair of jeans, but I very much care about my appearance and how I dress… I would be glad that I have so many choices. How would fashion designers feel if they go to their favorite clothing store, and only found one pair of cookie-cutter jeans? At the same time, if they’re unfamiliar or don’t care about technology or their computers, they would probably want limited choice to make the decision process easier. Choice facilitates individuality within our society and allows each person to choose to be different.
“Salad dressing – you made a good choice, but since there are others, you may feel regret even though the choice was good” – Again, I see his point, but I think it’s a moot point. So what if you feel regret about a choice you’ve made? You learn from your mistakes, and next time you choose a different salad dressing that will taste better.
I fundamentally disagree with his saying that “the key to happiness is low expectations”. I can see his point and how it would apply, but what if you apply that to something like technology? What if everybody was content with the first word processor? Technology wouldn’t have escalated like it has. You essentially limit your level of happiness. Let’s say that you are buying a pair of jeans in the 1960s… for the sake of ease, the jeans are all the same, just different sizes. When you buy that one pair, you may be satisfied with how it is because it is the only available one. So perhaps you are 100% satisfied with your purchase at the time. You like it, and you’re satisfied, but again… it’s the only option. Now fast forward 40 years later when you have all of the different styles of jeans that are different. You may have to search more for the pair that you like, but I believe you will come out with a higher level of satisfaction than what you experienced 40 years ago. You might be 1.5x more satisfied than you were when you bought those jeans 40 years ago, yet you’re still at 100% satisfaction. Your satisfaction ceiling has risen and now, you have an even deeper appreciation for jeans.
He keeps saying that people’s expectations go up with choice, and they are harder to satisfy. That’s how things improve, people improve, communities improve…. I guess I’m just trying to view this on a macroscopic level, thinking about the impacts that his principles would have on society. When I think about it on this level, his ideas don’t make any sense to me. Limiting choice simply prohibits progression since everybody is satisfied as a result of lowered expectations. I agree with his principles on an individual rational level… you’ll feel more easily satisfied when you have less choice because the choice is easier to make, and the marginal difference between Choice A and Choice B will be much higher than the difference between A and B when you have more and more choice. Yet, it’s hard for me to think of logical application since I can’t see a rational reason to follow this ideology.
I agree with Schwartz when he says that too much choice paralyzes a consumer. However, I think he fails to distinguish this idea on a very important level. If I’m searching for a pair of jeans, but I very much care about my appearance and how I dress… I would be glad that I have so many choices. How would fashion designers feel if they go to their favorite clothing store, and only found one pair of cookie-cutter jeans? At the same time, if they’re unfamiliar or don’t care about technology or their computers, they would probably want limited choice to make the decision process easier. Choice facilitates individuality within our society and allows each person to choose to be different.
“Salad dressing – you made a good choice, but since there are others, you may feel regret even though the choice was good” – Again, I see his point, but I think it’s a moot point. So what if you feel regret about a choice you’ve made? You learn from your mistakes, and next time you choose a different salad dressing that will taste better.
I fundamentally disagree with his saying that “the key to happiness is low expectations”. I can see his point and how it would apply, but what if you apply that to something like technology? What if everybody was content with the first word processor? Technology wouldn’t have escalated like it has. You essentially limit your level of happiness. Let’s say that you are buying a pair of jeans in the 1960s… for the sake of ease, the jeans are all the same, just different sizes. When you buy that one pair, you may be satisfied with how it is because it is the only available one. So perhaps you are 100% satisfied with your purchase at the time. You like it, and you’re satisfied, but again… it’s the only option. Now fast forward 40 years later when you have all of the different styles of jeans that are different. You may have to search more for the pair that you like, but I believe you will come out with a higher level of satisfaction than what you experienced 40 years ago. You might be 1.5x more satisfied than you were when you bought those jeans 40 years ago, yet you’re still at 100% satisfaction. Your satisfaction ceiling has risen and now, you have an even deeper appreciation for jeans.
He keeps saying that people’s expectations go up with choice, and they are harder to satisfy. That’s how things improve, people improve, communities improve…. I guess I’m just trying to view this on a macroscopic level, thinking about the impacts that his principles would have on society. When I think about it on this level, his ideas don’t make any sense to me. Limiting choice simply prohibits progression since everybody is satisfied as a result of lowered expectations. I agree with his principles on an individual rational level… you’ll feel more easily satisfied when you have less choice because the choice is easier to make, and the marginal difference between Choice A and Choice B will be much higher than the difference between A and B when you have more and more choice. Yet, it’s hard for me to think of logical application since I can’t see a rational reason to follow this ideology.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Some of my thoughts on the music industry.
The challenges that the music industry is facing due to the mass spread of digital content has always interested me because I got on the bandwagon of downloading music really early… 1997, which was the first year or so when Napster came out. My family started using DSL around this time, and I was just amazed that I could get all of this music for free. I was only 11 at the time, so I became hooked. From an early age, I knew it was illegal, but somehow the repercussions of committing an illegal act such as this seemed, and still does seem, intangible to me. The following post will be my comments on some of the statements cited in the article about digital music.
“Historically, the majors have controlled physical distribution of CDs. Yet that barrier to entry will erode as more music is distributed on the internet and mobile phones. Artists can, in theory, use the internet to bypass record firms, though few have yet done this. The principal reason most have not is that they need marketing and promotion, which the majors also dominate, to reach a wide audience.”
I think that this is a very true statement, and hopefully the erosion of the barriers will increase the variety of music that people become exposed to. The fact that it is so difficult to get into the music industry inhibits the expansion of a lot of different artists and music that’s available for reasons other than musical talent. There are plenty of bands out there that have no musical talent, but are marketable and thus successful. Perhaps this is because I have formal music training, but I appreciate the music rather than the entertainment value, so it’s hard for me to defend a system in which music industry fat-cats have power over what is popular and what isn’t.
I agree with Norah Jones when she said that the development of piracy in the music industry is actually good for it… it will prevent artists from just putting out lots of commercial crap. The landscape has become one of survival of the fittest. Only those with good music, who can develop a loyal fan base, will financially survive.
I do agree with record labels in that the advent of digital music has brought down their profits. I’m sure most people in my generation have downloaded music, or actively download music, and people in our age group, teens – young adults, are a huge part of the market for record labels. Do I think it’s justified? Of course not, stealing is stealing and I’m well aware that I’ve been doing it. But we do many things that are illegal that we don’t care about since we don’t think we’ll get caught. How many people change lanes in the middle of an intersection? How many people cut through parking lots to avoid a red light? I know I do all of those things too. The fact of the matter is that the face of music distribution is once again changing. Record labels thought they were going to go out of business when the cassette player developed and people could record songs off the radio and from other tapes. Instead, they figured out how to harness the technology and turn it into a profitable business. The same thing is going on here, just on a more extreme scale. There is a new technology, and it has created new problems, but like its predecessors, the problem can probably be harnessed with the right customer insights and the right business model.
“Historically, the majors have controlled physical distribution of CDs. Yet that barrier to entry will erode as more music is distributed on the internet and mobile phones. Artists can, in theory, use the internet to bypass record firms, though few have yet done this. The principal reason most have not is that they need marketing and promotion, which the majors also dominate, to reach a wide audience.”
I think that this is a very true statement, and hopefully the erosion of the barriers will increase the variety of music that people become exposed to. The fact that it is so difficult to get into the music industry inhibits the expansion of a lot of different artists and music that’s available for reasons other than musical talent. There are plenty of bands out there that have no musical talent, but are marketable and thus successful. Perhaps this is because I have formal music training, but I appreciate the music rather than the entertainment value, so it’s hard for me to defend a system in which music industry fat-cats have power over what is popular and what isn’t.
I agree with Norah Jones when she said that the development of piracy in the music industry is actually good for it… it will prevent artists from just putting out lots of commercial crap. The landscape has become one of survival of the fittest. Only those with good music, who can develop a loyal fan base, will financially survive.
I do agree with record labels in that the advent of digital music has brought down their profits. I’m sure most people in my generation have downloaded music, or actively download music, and people in our age group, teens – young adults, are a huge part of the market for record labels. Do I think it’s justified? Of course not, stealing is stealing and I’m well aware that I’ve been doing it. But we do many things that are illegal that we don’t care about since we don’t think we’ll get caught. How many people change lanes in the middle of an intersection? How many people cut through parking lots to avoid a red light? I know I do all of those things too. The fact of the matter is that the face of music distribution is once again changing. Record labels thought they were going to go out of business when the cassette player developed and people could record songs off the radio and from other tapes. Instead, they figured out how to harness the technology and turn it into a profitable business. The same thing is going on here, just on a more extreme scale. There is a new technology, and it has created new problems, but like its predecessors, the problem can probably be harnessed with the right customer insights and the right business model.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)