The virtues of marketing simple products
Every product team struggles with this question- it seems like naturally adding more featureset adds more power to the product, yet at the same time adds complexity that makes it hard for new users to even get started. This is a common problem in the initial version of a product, because most of the time the first version doesnt work, and the most obvious way to solve the problem is to just keep adding features until it starts to click. Yet does this ever work?
Dont compete on features. If your core concept isnt working, rework the description of the product rather than adding new stuff.
Make sure youre creating a product that competes because its taking a fundamentally different position in the market. If the market is full of complex, enterprise tools, then make a simpler product aimed at individuals. If the market is made up of fancy, high-end wines, then create one thats cheaper, younger, and more casual. If the market is full of long-form text blogging tools, then make one that makes it easy to communicate in 140 character bursts. If computers are techy and cheap, then make one thats human and more premium. These ideas are not about features, these are fundamentally different positions in the market.
BMW is the Ultimate Driving Machine
My favorite example of differentiated market positioning in a very crowded market is BMWs Ultimate Driving Machine slogan. Its not just a marketing message, you know its true when you sit inside a BMW and turn on the engine. Among other things, youll notice that:
The center console is aimed towards you, the driver
The window controls are next to your stick so its easier for your right hand*
and obviously the remarkable driving experience
Furthermore, when you go to the dealership, the entire experience keeps reinforcing the Ultimate Driving Machine message. The point is, the positioning is about the driving experience and the engineering to back that up.
In a price and features comparison, its unlikely that BMW would ever come on top- its expensive, and very little of the money goes into the interior and niceties that youd expect out of a Mercedes. Yet people end up buying BMWs not for the features, but because its a fundamentally different car than a Mercedes (or at least it feels that way).
Ive always felt that Apple goes this way too, where their products are more expensive and often do a lot less than competitive devices, yet win because they have a more cohesive design intention across their whole UX. Again, the idea here is more about competing via a differentiated positioning rather than based on a feature checklist.
Youll never win on features against a market leader
The other important part to remember is that for the most part, if theres a winning product X on the market, youre unlikely to win by creating the entire featureset of X+1 by adding more features. Heres why:
First off, thats crazy because you have to build a fully featured product right away, and that might already take years to match a market leader
Secondly, as described in the Innovators Dilemma, if youre mostly copying the market leader and then adding features, those features are likely to be sustaining innovations that is likely on the incumbents roadmap already- by the time youre done, theyll either have it or just copy you
Instead, the idea is to have a simpler product that attacks the low-end of the market leaders product by taking a completely different market positioning. That way, you dont have to build a fully featured product and you can take a completely different design intention, which leads to a disruptive innovation.
Ramifications for startups building initial versions of a product
I think there are three key ramifications for teams building the first version of a product.
The first is: Dont compete on features. Find an interesting way to position yourself differently not better, just differently than your competitors and build a small featureset that addresses that use case well. Then once you get a toehold in the market, you can figure out what to do there. This doesnt mean that new features are inherently bad, of course- they are fine, as long as they support the differentiation that youre promising.
The second thing is: If your product initially doesnt find a fit in the market (as is common), dont react by adding additional new features to fix the problem. That rarely works. Instead, rethink how youre describing the product and how you deliver differentiated value in the first 30 seconds. Rework the core of the experience and build a roadmap of new features that reflects the differentiated positioning. Avoid add-ons.
The third is: Make sure your product reflects the market positioning- this isnt just marketing you know! If your product is called the Ultimate Driving Machine, dont just slap that onto your ads and call it a day. Instead, bring that positioning into the core of your product so that its immediately obvious to anyone using it- its only in that way your product will be fundamentally differentiated from the start.
* UPDATE: An astute reader, Greg Eoyang, pointed out that the modern generation BMWs (E90s) are different now- I have an E46 thats a few years old, so I was basing my observation on that. He writes:
First of all, a most modern BMWs do not have the window controls near the stick, thats like 2 generations old, they are on the windows just like Hondas these days. BMW doesnt even tell you about a lot of the features that have been standard for a long time such as speed variable volume on the radios Wide Open Throttle switch (back in the non-CPU days, it cut off the air conditioner when you floored it) They have improved the concept of a car which is more than the features.
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/16fds9w, this factual content has not been modified from the source. This content is syndicated news that can be used for your research, and we hope that it can help your productivity. This content is strictly for educational purposes and is not made for any kind of commercial purposes of this blog.