However, not all product innovations are effective and beneficial to the market and corporate profits.
Narrow understanding of product innovation, too obsessed with technology and ignoring the demand itself to innovate, is a real butcher's knife for market efficiency and market opportunities.
Two misunderstandings in product innovation.
Regarding innovation, some people are wishful thinking, others are timid, or over-innovative, or afraid to innovate. I have met many companies with ideals. They fall into the technology itself and talk about innovation, but ignore the real needs of consumers, resulting in two situations:
The first is self-justification: not to consider the main conflicts of consumers, but to use the interests of the product itself. Wishful and enthusiastic product innovation has been labeled as a cold ass of consumers, wasting time and resources;
For example, I have seen many entrepreneurial teams doing home air testing before. Inspired by foreign products, they have developed air testing products for home air quality testing. The reason is that domestic companies are doing purification, but no one is doing testing, so the conclusion that the market space is huge is drawn.
However, he does not consider whether consumers encounter conflicts about air quality when facing air pollution. They can check it at any time when they open the mobile app, and then they will know it with the naked eye. What consumers want is a solution to the pollution problem, rather than repeatedly telling consumers that the air is not good today.
Such products also appear in sleep monitoring. Whether it is Omron abroad or many domestic brands, they use various technical solutions to detect sleep, and then tell consumers with data the next day that you didn't sleep well last night. Nonsense, I knew it when I got up last night. It cost me so much money to buy a product that told me the known problems. What consumers want is a product that can solve the problem of poor sleep.
This is not to say that the test products are worthless, but in the consumer market, such products should not be sold as independent products, but more technical support or technical endorsement behind the solution, or just a secondary conflict in the product solution.
Second, technology is unique: it is believed that only technological breakthrough is innovation. Technology is of course important, but the direction of innovation should be oriented to consumer demand. If we ignore the product adjustment for consumer conflicts and think that these methods are not innovation, we will miss the opportunity and market in vain.
When the opportunity market appears, the technology of the enterprise may not have been effectively improved. At this time, it is obviously more important to seize the opportunity. It is obviously smarter to aim at this direction first, and then gradually realize the improvement of technology and product iteration.
For example, when the children's medicine market was just emerging, a cold medicine with new raw materials suitable for children could be said to be "special for children". Then, can a child's cold medicine repackaged with half the original dose be said to be "for children only"?
You can see many products in crowdfunding, just to introduce how strong the team's technology is and overcome many patents, but when the final product comes out, you will find that it is not a product at all, but a product form that will make consumers stupid. This is a typical technical thinking.
In short, technological breakthrough is one of the favorable conditions for product innovation, but technological breakthrough itself is not equal to product innovation. If innovation is just for the sake of innovation, it is not desirable for market competition.
What is effective product innovation?
First of all, what is innovation?
Innovation is not only to be different, if it is only to be different, it is to innovate for the sake of innovation (of course, from the perspective of brand, differentiation is very important, at least the differentiation of product appearance can help spread when marketing, so I won't discuss it here).
Innovation is the process and innovation is the result. From the marketing point of view, we might as well understand innovation as creatively solving problems that could not be solved or were not solved well enough in the past.
At the same time, all consumers' buying behaviors stem from the conflicts they encounter. Conflict is the starting point of consumers' market behavior, so innovation to solve consumer conflicts is the basis of effective innovation.
However, the conflicts encountered by consumers are complex, dynamic and complicated, and it takes a price to solve the conflicts themselves. If you spend a lot of money to solve small problems, it is not an effective innovation, but it will waste more resources.
For example:
As mentioned earlier, Apple's invention of smart phones is of course an effective product innovation; The miscellaneous mobile phones in Huaqiang Beili, plus large batteries, speakers and buttons, are effective product innovations.
On the contrary, Motorola's "Iridium Project" launched 77 artificial satellites, which solved the problem of mobile phone signal in the wilderness, but consumers had to pay a high price for an accidental demand, which eventually became futile.
To paraphrase Internet products, it means high-frequency demand and low-frequency demand. We should concentrate resources to better meet the high-frequency needs of users, instead of investing too much energy in low-frequency needs. Even many times, because of limited resources, we will directly give up the low-frequency demand, or secondary contradictions.
Nissin founder Yasuo Ando studied technology and invented instant noodles, which is an effective product innovation. Wahaha renamed juice milk as Nutrition Express, emphasizing the effect of meal replacement, which is obviously an effective product innovation.
However, some beverage companies always emphasize that their products are ecological, concentrated and healthier than drinks on the market. As a result, the taste made people afraid to drink the second sip after drinking the first sip, which obviously did not distinguish what was the main conflict.
To sum up, we might as well understand it this way:
Product innovation that can solve or better solve the main contradictions of consumers and will not cause greater contradictions among consumers is truly effective product innovation;
In other words, if product innovation can't solve the conflict of consumers, or solve the small conflict of consumers, but it brings greater conflict, then it is futile product innovation.
So, the key question is: how to avoid it?
How to avoid futile product innovation?
Of course, the success of a product is not only related to the direction of innovation, but also affected by operation, market and enterprise strategy. , but this does not prevent the direction of innovation and consumer conflict from being discussed as a separate factor:
The characteristics of the following three innovation directions are very important:
1, technology serves the demand;
2. Cognition is greater than fact;
3. Don't be a mentor, be a friend.
Expand to say:
First of all, technology serves demand: as mentioned above, it is not innovation for innovation's sake. The essence of innovation is to solve the problems of consumers. If we can solve the problems of consumers, then whether there is a technical breakthrough or not, it is a great product innovation, and it is possible to gain a foothold in the market.
At the same time, if we can't solve consumer conflicts or spend a lot of money to solve minor conflicts, then whether it is an easy technological breakthrough or a mature market innovation, we need further accumulation, such as the further maturity of technology, which leads to the increase of product usability and the reduction of cost. We often encounter these problems in the process of product development and need to make a choice. If we can't always maintain conflict identification, it is easy to go astray in the process of development decision-making and invest too much energy and energy in repeated conflicts. In the end, it will be found that consumers simply cannot perceive this part of the investment.
Secondly, cognition is more important than fact: what consumers think of you is more important than what you really are, which is the same as getting along with others. For example, if you are an outgoing and lively person, if the goal you pursue thinks you are immature, then you still can't please each other.
Another example is juice. Many consumers have contradictions. They need fresh squeezed juice, not drinks made of pigment and sugar. However, even if the fruit is squeezed directly, it is still packed in the same package and put on the same shelf. Even if you say that you are the original juice and the original fruit is squeezed on the bottle, consumers will still classify you with traditional drinks in their minds.
On the contrary, those fruit juices placed in the air-conditioning cabinets of convenience stores are considered by consumers to be squeezed out by native fruits, because only fruit juices need to be refrigerated. (There is a picture, which of the two kinds of juice is more like freshly squeezed? )
However, the cruel fact is that when you pick up the seemingly freshly squeezed juice on the shelf, the first two items on the back ingredient list must basically be "concentrated juice and water".
Therefore, product innovation must pay attention to consumers' cognition to make innovation. You must first seem to be able to solve this problem, and then you can be evaluated by consumers as "can you actually solve this problem?" If consumers feel that you can't solve this problem, then you really can't solve this problem. When chatting with some entrepreneurs, you will find that they often say, "My product is so good that consumers don't realize it. It seems that users still need education. "
Third, don't be a mentor, be friends. On the basis of consumer cognition, try to cater to consumers as much as possible, instead of always trying to educate consumers.
For consumers, the function of the product can be "icing on the cake" or "giving charcoal in the snow". But he won't need a product to make him "suddenly regret" and "pull back from the brink". That's not a product, it's his soul coach.
Of course, in fact, no enterprise must let consumers "pull back from the brink", because such enterprises are estimated to have just started, either closed down or engaged in online education. Even when Jobs released the iphone, he didn't try to educate users. Instead, he uses three products to help users understand what iPhone is-telephone, ipod and Internet device.
But in fact, inadvertently, in the direction of innovation, enterprises are still doing a lot of things, trying to make consumers "regret" and produce new products to tell consumers that you were all wrong in the past and this product is right.
There seem to be many such examples in the market, and there are also seemingly successful examples. However, if you pay attention, you will find that those successful examples first come from consumer demand or products.
For example, Ziyuan silicone-free shampoo, although silicone-free shampoo is an innovative product, tells consumers, "You have washed your hair all your life, have you washed your scalp?" But in fact, it is the problem of bad scalp and hair loss that consumers first encountered that led to the product innovation in Zi Yuan. Otherwise, blindly making a daily chemical product will die and I don't know how to die.
There is an important criterion to judge whether consumers need functional innovation or cost innovation.
Functional innovation means that consumers will pay more time, energy or money for better efficacy.
Cost innovation means that the efficacy of products has not changed or slightly deteriorated, but consumers need to pay less time, energy or money compared with efficacy.
The direction of innovation is functional innovation or cost innovation, which must be consistent with consumers' demand for product functions. For products with positive functions, consumers are willing to spend more time and energy, afraid that your effect is not good enough; For products with cost function, consumers actually have low requirements and can spend less energy.
Give a few examples, which is also the idea of horizontal marketing:
In marketing, in order to seize the hydrating market, Polaiya introduced the concept of "water in the morning and evening" to make skin younger twice a day:
The effect of hydration is positive for consumers. If it is proved to be effective, most consumers are willing to apply 10 times a day.
According to our actual investigation, in order to ensure the effect, most consumers need to replenish water twice a day, one morning and one night. Therefore, Polaiya introduced the product innovation of "morning and evening water", and the effect is better with morning and evening water. This is in line with consumers' cognition and positive demand. Water product innovation will become a powerful magic weapon for Polaiya brand to catch up sooner or later. The same product also has white plus black to cure colds-eating white tablets during the day is not sleepy, and eating black tablets at night is a sound sleep. It also captures the conflict that consumers will fall asleep after taking the medicine, rather than telling consumers information such as drug ingredients that they don't know.
Another example is the concept of "toothpaste is divided into men and women" introduced by a daily chemical brand:
Regardless of whether toothpaste can be divided into men and women, for most consumers, toothpaste plays a protective role and is a negative purpose. Don't say it's so troublesome to separate men and women. Consumers want to brush their teeth only once a day, or even not. I can't even brush my teeth twice. Why should I divide men and women?
Toothpaste is a negative and protective product for most consumers. Brushing your teeth won't benefit you immediately, but it may hurt your teeth if you don't brush. And "toothpaste is divided into men and women" is a positive innovation. Consumers simply don't want to pay more energy for you. This innovative direction is obviously more difficult. Even if it succeeds, it needs more marketing expenses.
Therefore, along this line of thinking, toothpaste can't tell men and women, and toothpaste can't tell morning and evening. However, can we develop a more effective long-lasting toothpaste, preferably brushing it twice or once a day?
Similarly, where can the concept of "sooner or later" be used? Not on toothpaste, but on whitening products? Can freckle products go up? Can fitness products go up?
Opinions vary, but it is absolutely inseparable from the study of consumer conflict.
abstract
Two misunderstandings in product innovation;
Where to point: use the interests of the product itself instead of thinking about the main conflicts of consumers.
Unique technology: think that only technological breakthrough is innovation.
Effective product innovation:
Product innovation that can solve or better solve the main contradictions of consumers and will not cause greater contradictions among consumers.
In vain product innovation:
Product innovation can't solve the conflict of consumers, or solve the small conflict of consumers, but it brings more conflicts.
Three main points that should be followed in the direction of product innovation:
Technology serves demand;
Cognition is greater than fact;
Don't be a mentor, be a friend (distinguish between functional innovation and cost innovation of products)