curiousitycatalyst

[curiousitycatalyst]

Why do we always seem to trust expert opinion? The Fall and Rise of Febreze

I honestly don't believe people really understand or believe in experimentation. It seems so easy to just trust an "expert" and to believe an initial experiment that confirms your intuition or design. Striving to try to prove yourself wrong rather than right is the only want to understand your experiement.

A great example of this I love is the story of Febreze. A massive brand that has all but completely cornered the market almost completely failed. Febreze did plenty of experiments to show that their initial product removed scents. It worked for people who sat in smoking sections, it worked to remove the scent of pets. They saw successful result that confirmed their belief that people felt a need to remove those scents around them with a park ranger who often ended up bring home the scent of a skunk. For her this changed her life.

But the product wasn't selling and they couldn't understand. On the brink of complete failure they attended the home of someone owning several cats, the house smelling absolutely of the pets that lived there. when asked why she stopped using Febreze she responded that she didn't really see a change, its not like her home smelled any different.

Thinking people needed to make "sanitize" the smell of their home was confirmed in some experiments, but that wasn't reality. After pivoting and recovering Febreze identified that people wanted a pleasant scent after they finished cleaning as an olfactory reward for the hard work they put in. This is how Febreze as we know it today was born.

If your experiment confirms the experts belief, it still doesn't make it true.

[curiousitycatalyst]

What to do about AI?

I understand the desire to implement "good friction" for the consumer, but is friction the best way to look at this? AI is a very diffuse and general term that describes a considerable area of study and many different tools that can be used. In the article it appears that we wish to pass on the responsibility to consumers, rather than focusing on the organization and leadership taking responsibility. Why not look to focus on implementation friction rather than consumer friction? If the executives are not willing to understand the "black box" associated with their models why would we expect the consumer to do so?

Why don't we look to develop those who are implementing these advanced tools? Most AI models are not exactly "black boxes" but they are "black boxes" by design. In creating a white box or grey box model the the organization would incur more costs. Interpretability of the model does not only benefit the organization, it benefits the end consumer. If the creators and the users both understand how a model came to its recommendation wouldn't that provide a better end result.

While I agree with the sentiments in the reading, the reality is I believe I disagree with the process. Why not implement more stringent requirements on those implementing AI solutions to provide interpretability and insight into their models for their end users, thus eliminating the "lobster trap" reality that could unfold? Implementing AI only where it is valuable to both the organization and the user should be the targeted friction we aim for, rather than letting organization release AI with no context, but give users more choices through its use. I believe this will both stunt AI growth in the appropriate direction and fail to inform users of how the underlying technology actually works.

AI should be used responsible, and those implementing it should be held responsible for that application.

[curiousitycatalyst]

Customer map, why not customer trap?

It is interesting to me that the customer journey map is perceived linearly rather than as a cycle. I understand the idea that intent needs to be put into getting a customer to purchase the product, but why not consider in your designed customer experience the directing of them back to your product for the next journey? I believe this is something that Apple has done very well.

Imagine you are an Apple user. When you consider starting your next product journey for a smartphone, my guess would be that you do not consider any other products than an iPhone. But why is that? From my point of view, Apple has constructed your customer journey in such a way that you have no other alternatives. If you have any other Apple devices, such as a MacBook, AirPods, or Apple Watch, then choosing any other product for this customer journey would result in losing substantial product synergy that Apple has inherently designed into their products.

In my mind, this turns the customer journey map from a linear reading into a customer trap. By creating a customer experience that relies on other products, Apple has successfully redirected their iPhone users right back to the purchase step in the process, creating a smaller cycle that does not require users to acquire awareness or conduct research; the answer is right in front of them. Remember... "Life is easier on an iPhone."

[curiousitycatalyst]

Corona and Heineken

Heineken and Corona are both importers of Beer to the US in large quantities. Heineken was present in the US much earlier than Corona and held a considerable market share at the time in which Corona entered the import market. Heineken had dominance for such a considerable period of time, holding the top role in imports since the repealing of the prohibition. Heineken's biggest vulnerability is their content attitude though multiple decades of market dominance. Heineken was good at advertising their high quality, refined European product, but had no true response to the new entrant Corona, which took a more personal and emotional product strategy.

Corona grew via grass roots movements, where representatives were on the ground pushing the beer at bars and restaurants across the US. This builds trust and confidence in the consumers who are actually meeting with the company representatives, showing that the company representatives care about the product so passionately that they traveled all the way from Mexico.

Heineken's brand stands for quality. It is a refined import with decades of high quality brewing experience. "Just being the best is enough" is what Heineken pushed as their brand. Corona took a considerably different angle. With no face existing in their advertisement, Corona appealed to the consumer to give them a taste of pleasant times in Mexico, which is reinforced via the visual of faceless individuals enjoying beer on the beach in such a way that the consumer could easily imagine they were those individuals.

Corona should see great value in the response of competitors to their entry into the market. Heineken initially wrote them off, but they persevered through it. The entry of rumors associated with urine in the bottles, or ingredients causing cancer also show that the competition found merit in Corona's presence in the market, and Corona's ability to refute these rumors and recover shows strength to their brand strategy and management.