ticking
Today we will talk about one of the options, as it happens. Unfortunately, it happens quite often.
So.
Dana industry.
')
There are companies in it. Many different. Manufacturers, suppliers, support, end users. We are now interested in end users and manufacturers.
What do you think users want? There is nothing easier - to product to do what they want. That is, had a set of functions sufficient to perform the final set of necessary tasks.
What do you think they want to show off? Yes, get more money. But how do they achieve this? put as many ticks in the fichalist as possible . This trick is good when:
a) your end users have a very wide variation in the “final set of necessary tasks”;
b) you hold a very large percentage of the market and occupy many different consumer niches, respectively, we return to point a).
In all other options ticking has no meaning.
If we talk about home users (in many respects these statements also apply to the corporate market, just the scale is different), then, of course, there is a certain class of users for whom it is important to know that they have the latest version of the product, with the largest set of features, and in general, "my Schwartz is longer than yours." But, but. For most people, what’s important is not the product itself, but what it does.
“I chose this product because it is just a backup, no hassle with additional settings,” says our friend. - I do not need to think what this or that tick means, because they simply do not exist, and I do not need to fool my head with all sorts of useless things.
“I use it because he just writes discs,” says another friend of ours. - He does not associate himself with my video or audio files, does not show my pictures. Just writing discs. Everything I need.
What do we see? We see that in most cases software vendors chase a set of checkmarks, which users do not need, and in many cases even contraindicated.
A set of checkmarks increases
. production time
. number of people involved
. time to debug and test
. money to ensure all this.
What do we end up with? Dear great product that many users simply do not need with such a set of features for the money. Due to the fact that no one conducted a market research, but rather acted according to the principle “we will do it like our competitors, they know exactly what they need”. The fact of the matter is that competitors are not you, and their market is not your market, and nobody will need their features in your performance.
It would be much better to move in small, but confident steps. Let me exaggerate in this example, but take the same Google, which is now widely known. They did not have an insane amount of ticks. Did not have. At first there was just a search engine, then there was a little better search engine, then the search engine became even better. Then they added orkut, gmail, gugldoks, google reader, googlanalytiks and a lot more then google. But it was already after Google became a good search engine. Yes, now he has a bunch of features, a bunch of checkmarks, but if you're an ordinary user, you'll never see them. For you, Google will remain just a search engine, and small steps, which eventually became a giant traversed path, for you will only be reflected in the fact that Google is widely known.
Yes, it is fashionable to talk about Google today, but let us return to the tick point. What could be the result of this meaningless number of characters?
- the relationship between ticks and sales is not directly proportional
- the volume of ticks above the “subsistence level” with the benefit of their implementation can only be afforded by firms that have established / almost established / completely failed [but in any case have already drawn certain conclusions and are established] in those niches in which they work.
Well, and quite, quite a result, as old as the world:
Don't get scattered - let it be less, but better, than more, but shit.
So.
Dana industry.
')
There are companies in it. Many different. Manufacturers, suppliers, support, end users. We are now interested in end users and manufacturers.
What do you think users want? There is nothing easier - to product to do what they want. That is, had a set of functions sufficient to perform the final set of necessary tasks.
What do you think they want to show off? Yes, get more money. But how do they achieve this? put as many ticks in the fichalist as possible . This trick is good when:
a) your end users have a very wide variation in the “final set of necessary tasks”;
b) you hold a very large percentage of the market and occupy many different consumer niches, respectively, we return to point a).
In all other options ticking has no meaning.
If we talk about home users (in many respects these statements also apply to the corporate market, just the scale is different), then, of course, there is a certain class of users for whom it is important to know that they have the latest version of the product, with the largest set of features, and in general, "my Schwartz is longer than yours." But, but. For most people, what’s important is not the product itself, but what it does.
“I chose this product because it is just a backup, no hassle with additional settings,” says our friend. - I do not need to think what this or that tick means, because they simply do not exist, and I do not need to fool my head with all sorts of useless things.
“I use it because he just writes discs,” says another friend of ours. - He does not associate himself with my video or audio files, does not show my pictures. Just writing discs. Everything I need.
What do we see? We see that in most cases software vendors chase a set of checkmarks, which users do not need, and in many cases even contraindicated.
A set of checkmarks increases
. production time
. number of people involved
. time to debug and test
. money to ensure all this.
What do we end up with? Dear great product that many users simply do not need with such a set of features for the money. Due to the fact that no one conducted a market research, but rather acted according to the principle “we will do it like our competitors, they know exactly what they need”. The fact of the matter is that competitors are not you, and their market is not your market, and nobody will need their features in your performance.
It would be much better to move in small, but confident steps. Let me exaggerate in this example, but take the same Google, which is now widely known. They did not have an insane amount of ticks. Did not have. At first there was just a search engine, then there was a little better search engine, then the search engine became even better. Then they added orkut, gmail, gugldoks, google reader, googlanalytiks and a lot more then google. But it was already after Google became a good search engine. Yes, now he has a bunch of features, a bunch of checkmarks, but if you're an ordinary user, you'll never see them. For you, Google will remain just a search engine, and small steps, which eventually became a giant traversed path, for you will only be reflected in the fact that Google is widely known.
Yes, it is fashionable to talk about Google today, but let us return to the tick point. What could be the result of this meaningless number of characters?
- the relationship between ticks and sales is not directly proportional
- the volume of ticks above the “subsistence level” with the benefit of their implementation can only be afforded by firms that have established / almost established / completely failed [but in any case have already drawn certain conclusions and are established] in those niches in which they work.
Well, and quite, quite a result, as old as the world:
Don't get scattered - let it be less, but better, than more, but shit.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/11967/
All Articles