New things and promotion policy
Many copies have already been broken on what to do in the following situation: you invented, described and implemented something new. Moreover, such a new one, which, in your opinion, will bring happiness to the world, simplify life, move technology to a new level. All your friends, acquaintances and colleagues synchronously and amicably say that your product is just megaofigenen.
Now it remains the case: to bring your product to the end user of this product. How?
In response to this question, you can hear the answer “Well, it's simple. It is necessary to do so <...>. This has already worked a hundred times, will work and again. " You go on this path, and your product dissolves in the faceless mass of what is already there, or loses to the worst, but older and well-known competitor. Why? How to avoid it? What is done usually and why is it not good?
As the most obvious example to consider, I’ll take a simple and obvious example of crawling out of Apple’s not the most pleasant pit. And they got out so fast that they managed to hang a big and tasty kick to the market owner at the time of getting out - Nokia. Naturally, we are talking about the mobile device market, where Apple is now living and well, pushing everything else into the background.
But I will begin with the traditional approach to advancement, its pros and cons.
')
So, take the product. Let us assume that a product with similar functionality is already on the market, there is a long time and is somehow being sold.
Let's start with the development of your product. The traditional development method is as follows:
00. The emergence of the IDEA.
0. Marketing research of the market to which you are going to launch your product.
1. General statement of the problem
You are sitting, thinking that you would like to inject with your product, or you are finding a problem not solved by anyone and you understand that this is what brings you a lot of money, fame and joy, but at the same time (let's not fool ourselves, only at the same time) make some people happy. Marketing research confirms that yes, this is exactly what is needed.
2. The choice of methods for solving the problem and the definition of the functionality of your product (something different from what is on the market)
You choose how it should be, as it is, from your point of view, it will be convenient to use where to focus attention. You sit for days (and sometimes nights), lovingly honing the work of your product in accordance with your logic. Yes, you have to cut off some very convenient, but not critical from your point of view things at this level, but they are not critical, right?
3. Realization of the product itself
You make, make, make product. You try to get into your own set deadlines, cut off some more things, add patches. As a result, in your product, if it is a program, there are menus with a 20m level of nesting, annoying limitations or shortcomings appear in the technique: for example, the fact that to switch on transmission number 5 you have to put your hand behind your back. But then your product can do almost everything that you want to put into it, it is more powerful and, from your point of view, better than what is on the market. Some ideas are not embarrassing and to wash with competitors - if it has rolled from them, it will also ride from you. And the product is ready.
4. Product Testing
You are testing the product (with the help of employees, or, worse, yourself), to determine if it actually works the way you have laid. Of course, there is not enough time for testing, how much you spent on setting the task and designing you do not have it, and why? The check is intended only to certify you that everything works as planned, and you know exactly how it is planned. Well, yes, it is necessary to cut a couple of sharp corners. Now, after testing, the menu has become a 10m level of nesting, and, it turns out, it falls in a couple of places; or the hand for turning on the 5th gear should not be thrust behind the back now, but simply sharply pulled at itself, striking itself on the thigh. But these are such trifles, you can close your eyes to this.
5. Product launch and advertising
Here it is, ready. Cool. You put it on the market, try to open your eyes to everyone around you (advertising from very intense, to not at all intense, depending on your capabilities) that familiar and familiar things are rubbish, and your product is gold. And yes, the ad says about your revolutionary functionality, new opportunities and joys, prospects for development, even if these opportunities do not quite work, or are only going to appear. You even manage to push your product to a certain number of users and now you hope that the opening of your eyes will continue with a chain reaction. And no one wants to open his eyes. Everyone is watching, they say “Mmm. What a cool thing, a very good thing "and continue to use the old rubbish. Well, if your product is focused on the use of large companies - kickbacks, cuts and lobbying will do their job and it will at least pay off. And if the product is focused on the mass market? Then you know where you are, and the smell of this place you do not like.
Did you recognize your project in this scheme? She, this scheme, is now, de facto, the standard for the emergence of something new. In the context of the example under consideration with mobile devices, this is exactly how the market of programs for WinMobile worked, this is how the system itself developed, this is how the systems of the market leader, Nokia, developed.
In financing the development of this scheme, there is a serious bias in the direction of advertising and development. The remaining areas are financed lower and play a role not to the second plan, but somewhat less significant than these two. Naturally, this scheme has both pluses and minuses. I'll start with the pros:
1. For development sponsors - a relatively low level of costs for the release of a new product. As a result: you can invest in a large number of products, at least one - let them shoot, or at least compensates for the costs of all the others.
2. Ability to develop a product with limited resources
3. Almost guaranteed any and profit from the product
4. A relatively short period from the start of development to the end of development.
5. This scheme has existed for a long time and has been tested by time. Moreover, it is actively recommended and implanted.
6. The possibility of statistical evaluation of profits and losses. Actually, statistically analyzing the market, you can calculate how many projects you can finance at the same time, what is the maximum amount of financing, what is guaranteed profit.
Minuses:
1. The yield from the total mass is very, very, very low, a significant amount of costs goes into the sand.
2. Lack of a central project. The statistical analysis of the mass of products manufactured according to this scheme is susceptible, but it is impossible to specify which of them will be fired. As a result, efforts are spent everywhere about the same, and, as a result, failed projects are worked out better than necessary, and the fired flagship is unfinished.
Well, yes, the product implemented according to this scheme (if he was lucky and he sold out) is already clear how to develop. Increase the functionality, remove the disadvantages of the first version, improve consumer properties. However, in the process of using the first version, users become accustomed to curves, but still working interfaces.
And then to explain to the user that you used bakoy, but in the new version did better ... The task is on the verge of magic and fiction, because the transition from the curve, but the usual to the new is, in fact, stop using the product. Giving an example from the mobile device market - stylus advocates still exist today, and they won’t go anywhere, although using a stylus in 90% of tasks is inconvenient. However, people are accustomed to, and it is no longer possible to wean them from something familiar.
And now I will paint the scheme, which, it seems to me, was used (and continue to use) by the Yabloko.
00. The emergence of the IDEA.
0. Market research of the market you want to profit
1. Analysis of existing solutions, their pros and cons, ways to achieve popularity, user complaints.
2. Development of design (meaning technical design, not Khokhloma with a list) of its own product, implementing the same functionality as the products on the market. Attention is focused not on the new and revolutionary, but on the old, but devoid of the main shortcomings of predecessors and, as a result, also revolutionary.
3. Realization of the product itself. And at the head of this implementation is not at all the functional, but the design and the elimination of the shortcomings of the predecessors, which is why you often have to cut off huge pieces from the functional (in the context of the example, Copy-Paste was cut off, apparently, just like that).
4. Product testing. Long, bloody tests to identify errors and eliminate all that is there. Even when everything seemed to be found, you need to check again. And further.
5. Advertising and product launch. Advertising, it is the main at this stage. It begins to be held at the time of the design development (so that there was something to advertise). At the same time, the advertisement only says that the implementation of which has already been completed, or is almost completed, or will be so unequivocally completed that it simply has nowhere else to go. Not a word about prospects, not a word about supermegfunktsional, which is not yet clear whether it will be fully implemented. Skewing only towards usability. Thereby, the reserved public interest in your product is fueled in advance. So that it does not cool down, advertising is done in stages, in each new stage it is told that what has already been done completely. And by the time of launch, the product will buy a certain number of users simply out of interest.
In the financing of a product produced under this scheme, the distortions are different: the emphasis on research, design, testing and advertising. It is design and stability that are central to this scheme, and not developed functionality.
The pros and cons here are more difficult to separate, as each factor and plus and minus are at the same time, so I simply list them (factors):
1. Investment is made in a single product, as with the successful "shooting" of its profits are obtained space. This, of course, is also a minus, since if you burn through it is completely. And yes, the volume of investments in this one product easily and naturally covers the volume of investments in a dozen products manufactured according to the first scheme. But the expected profits overlap the profits from a dozen of an order of magnitude, and even a few.
2. The resource intensity of the product is higher than that of the former, since the depth of study is incomparably higher. This means that such things cannot be put on stream, but again, there are other excuses for this risk.
3. The yield is very high. Frankly failure projects implemented under this scheme, has not yet been. But if failure is a failure.
4. The development scheme is non-standard, not tested by time, requires constant correction and does not tolerate a reduction in attention to even the smallest detail, since it can easily lead to the collapse of the entire project. So, it requires a very tough guide, knowing where it wants to lead the whole project.
The direction of development of the project implemented according to this scheme is clear: improvement of the functional, but slow, very, very, very slow, so as not to under any circumstances reduce stability and usability. In the future, the project will be approached in terms of functionality to projects made according to the first scheme.
This scheme has one deadly flaw: it is based on individuals, not on the masses. The masses cannot work on it, they do not have such an unambiguous purposefulness and understanding of the final goal, which means that the first scheme will automatically win by assimilating the products created by the second one. But it is the products made according to the second scheme that bring something new into the industry, which allows us to take a step forward.
What is realized by this scheme for everyone, I think, is clear: ipod, ipod touch, iphone, ipad. What turned out of them and how much all of this "shot", again, is obvious to everyone. And the development of these projects goes on and on: the iPhone aspires everything according to the functionality of WinMobile, getting closer and closer to it. But this is a topic for another post, which is worth dwelling on.
By the way, Android, although Google has long and fruitfully cooperated with Apple, is being developed and developed according to the first scheme. Is it because, for Google, this is, nevertheless, a third-party project, or because Google does not sell hardware, but sells software, and the first scheme historically lives there, or because of some other factor — definitely not to say. You can only make an obvious conclusion from the position of Android in the market, which, so far, at least, can be described as sad. Whether the first scheme wins the second in the short term is unlikely. Perhaps even incredible.
As for the use of schemes in practice - the second scheme is almost never used. It is very difficult to convince someone to invest so much and immediately with the prospect of losing everything. But precisely when it is used, we have excellent products at the outlet, becoming objects for imitating the entire industry, which are pleasant and easy to use. Of course, over time, the first scheme always wins, but if it were not for the second, we would move forward very slowly in any sense of this expression. And I would very much like to have more products created according to the second scheme, because thanks to them life becomes better, life becomes more fun.
Now it remains the case: to bring your product to the end user of this product. How?
In response to this question, you can hear the answer “Well, it's simple. It is necessary to do so <...>. This has already worked a hundred times, will work and again. " You go on this path, and your product dissolves in the faceless mass of what is already there, or loses to the worst, but older and well-known competitor. Why? How to avoid it? What is done usually and why is it not good?
As the most obvious example to consider, I’ll take a simple and obvious example of crawling out of Apple’s not the most pleasant pit. And they got out so fast that they managed to hang a big and tasty kick to the market owner at the time of getting out - Nokia. Naturally, we are talking about the mobile device market, where Apple is now living and well, pushing everything else into the background.
But I will begin with the traditional approach to advancement, its pros and cons.
')
So, take the product. Let us assume that a product with similar functionality is already on the market, there is a long time and is somehow being sold.
Let's start with the development of your product. The traditional development method is as follows:
00. The emergence of the IDEA.
0. Marketing research of the market to which you are going to launch your product.
1. General statement of the problem
You are sitting, thinking that you would like to inject with your product, or you are finding a problem not solved by anyone and you understand that this is what brings you a lot of money, fame and joy, but at the same time (let's not fool ourselves, only at the same time) make some people happy. Marketing research confirms that yes, this is exactly what is needed.
2. The choice of methods for solving the problem and the definition of the functionality of your product (something different from what is on the market)
You choose how it should be, as it is, from your point of view, it will be convenient to use where to focus attention. You sit for days (and sometimes nights), lovingly honing the work of your product in accordance with your logic. Yes, you have to cut off some very convenient, but not critical from your point of view things at this level, but they are not critical, right?
3. Realization of the product itself
You make, make, make product. You try to get into your own set deadlines, cut off some more things, add patches. As a result, in your product, if it is a program, there are menus with a 20m level of nesting, annoying limitations or shortcomings appear in the technique: for example, the fact that to switch on transmission number 5 you have to put your hand behind your back. But then your product can do almost everything that you want to put into it, it is more powerful and, from your point of view, better than what is on the market. Some ideas are not embarrassing and to wash with competitors - if it has rolled from them, it will also ride from you. And the product is ready.
4. Product Testing
You are testing the product (with the help of employees, or, worse, yourself), to determine if it actually works the way you have laid. Of course, there is not enough time for testing, how much you spent on setting the task and designing you do not have it, and why? The check is intended only to certify you that everything works as planned, and you know exactly how it is planned. Well, yes, it is necessary to cut a couple of sharp corners. Now, after testing, the menu has become a 10m level of nesting, and, it turns out, it falls in a couple of places; or the hand for turning on the 5th gear should not be thrust behind the back now, but simply sharply pulled at itself, striking itself on the thigh. But these are such trifles, you can close your eyes to this.
5. Product launch and advertising
Here it is, ready. Cool. You put it on the market, try to open your eyes to everyone around you (advertising from very intense, to not at all intense, depending on your capabilities) that familiar and familiar things are rubbish, and your product is gold. And yes, the ad says about your revolutionary functionality, new opportunities and joys, prospects for development, even if these opportunities do not quite work, or are only going to appear. You even manage to push your product to a certain number of users and now you hope that the opening of your eyes will continue with a chain reaction. And no one wants to open his eyes. Everyone is watching, they say “Mmm. What a cool thing, a very good thing "and continue to use the old rubbish. Well, if your product is focused on the use of large companies - kickbacks, cuts and lobbying will do their job and it will at least pay off. And if the product is focused on the mass market? Then you know where you are, and the smell of this place you do not like.
Did you recognize your project in this scheme? She, this scheme, is now, de facto, the standard for the emergence of something new. In the context of the example under consideration with mobile devices, this is exactly how the market of programs for WinMobile worked, this is how the system itself developed, this is how the systems of the market leader, Nokia, developed.
In financing the development of this scheme, there is a serious bias in the direction of advertising and development. The remaining areas are financed lower and play a role not to the second plan, but somewhat less significant than these two. Naturally, this scheme has both pluses and minuses. I'll start with the pros:
1. For development sponsors - a relatively low level of costs for the release of a new product. As a result: you can invest in a large number of products, at least one - let them shoot, or at least compensates for the costs of all the others.
2. Ability to develop a product with limited resources
3. Almost guaranteed any and profit from the product
4. A relatively short period from the start of development to the end of development.
5. This scheme has existed for a long time and has been tested by time. Moreover, it is actively recommended and implanted.
6. The possibility of statistical evaluation of profits and losses. Actually, statistically analyzing the market, you can calculate how many projects you can finance at the same time, what is the maximum amount of financing, what is guaranteed profit.
Minuses:
1. The yield from the total mass is very, very, very low, a significant amount of costs goes into the sand.
2. Lack of a central project. The statistical analysis of the mass of products manufactured according to this scheme is susceptible, but it is impossible to specify which of them will be fired. As a result, efforts are spent everywhere about the same, and, as a result, failed projects are worked out better than necessary, and the fired flagship is unfinished.
Well, yes, the product implemented according to this scheme (if he was lucky and he sold out) is already clear how to develop. Increase the functionality, remove the disadvantages of the first version, improve consumer properties. However, in the process of using the first version, users become accustomed to curves, but still working interfaces.
And then to explain to the user that you used bakoy, but in the new version did better ... The task is on the verge of magic and fiction, because the transition from the curve, but the usual to the new is, in fact, stop using the product. Giving an example from the mobile device market - stylus advocates still exist today, and they won’t go anywhere, although using a stylus in 90% of tasks is inconvenient. However, people are accustomed to, and it is no longer possible to wean them from something familiar.
And now I will paint the scheme, which, it seems to me, was used (and continue to use) by the Yabloko.
00. The emergence of the IDEA.
0. Market research of the market you want to profit
1. Analysis of existing solutions, their pros and cons, ways to achieve popularity, user complaints.
2. Development of design (meaning technical design, not Khokhloma with a list) of its own product, implementing the same functionality as the products on the market. Attention is focused not on the new and revolutionary, but on the old, but devoid of the main shortcomings of predecessors and, as a result, also revolutionary.
3. Realization of the product itself. And at the head of this implementation is not at all the functional, but the design and the elimination of the shortcomings of the predecessors, which is why you often have to cut off huge pieces from the functional (in the context of the example, Copy-Paste was cut off, apparently, just like that).
4. Product testing. Long, bloody tests to identify errors and eliminate all that is there. Even when everything seemed to be found, you need to check again. And further.
5. Advertising and product launch. Advertising, it is the main at this stage. It begins to be held at the time of the design development (so that there was something to advertise). At the same time, the advertisement only says that the implementation of which has already been completed, or is almost completed, or will be so unequivocally completed that it simply has nowhere else to go. Not a word about prospects, not a word about supermegfunktsional, which is not yet clear whether it will be fully implemented. Skewing only towards usability. Thereby, the reserved public interest in your product is fueled in advance. So that it does not cool down, advertising is done in stages, in each new stage it is told that what has already been done completely. And by the time of launch, the product will buy a certain number of users simply out of interest.
In the financing of a product produced under this scheme, the distortions are different: the emphasis on research, design, testing and advertising. It is design and stability that are central to this scheme, and not developed functionality.
The pros and cons here are more difficult to separate, as each factor and plus and minus are at the same time, so I simply list them (factors):
1. Investment is made in a single product, as with the successful "shooting" of its profits are obtained space. This, of course, is also a minus, since if you burn through it is completely. And yes, the volume of investments in this one product easily and naturally covers the volume of investments in a dozen products manufactured according to the first scheme. But the expected profits overlap the profits from a dozen of an order of magnitude, and even a few.
2. The resource intensity of the product is higher than that of the former, since the depth of study is incomparably higher. This means that such things cannot be put on stream, but again, there are other excuses for this risk.
3. The yield is very high. Frankly failure projects implemented under this scheme, has not yet been. But if failure is a failure.
4. The development scheme is non-standard, not tested by time, requires constant correction and does not tolerate a reduction in attention to even the smallest detail, since it can easily lead to the collapse of the entire project. So, it requires a very tough guide, knowing where it wants to lead the whole project.
The direction of development of the project implemented according to this scheme is clear: improvement of the functional, but slow, very, very, very slow, so as not to under any circumstances reduce stability and usability. In the future, the project will be approached in terms of functionality to projects made according to the first scheme.
This scheme has one deadly flaw: it is based on individuals, not on the masses. The masses cannot work on it, they do not have such an unambiguous purposefulness and understanding of the final goal, which means that the first scheme will automatically win by assimilating the products created by the second one. But it is the products made according to the second scheme that bring something new into the industry, which allows us to take a step forward.
What is realized by this scheme for everyone, I think, is clear: ipod, ipod touch, iphone, ipad. What turned out of them and how much all of this "shot", again, is obvious to everyone. And the development of these projects goes on and on: the iPhone aspires everything according to the functionality of WinMobile, getting closer and closer to it. But this is a topic for another post, which is worth dwelling on.
By the way, Android, although Google has long and fruitfully cooperated with Apple, is being developed and developed according to the first scheme. Is it because, for Google, this is, nevertheless, a third-party project, or because Google does not sell hardware, but sells software, and the first scheme historically lives there, or because of some other factor — definitely not to say. You can only make an obvious conclusion from the position of Android in the market, which, so far, at least, can be described as sad. Whether the first scheme wins the second in the short term is unlikely. Perhaps even incredible.
As for the use of schemes in practice - the second scheme is almost never used. It is very difficult to convince someone to invest so much and immediately with the prospect of losing everything. But precisely when it is used, we have excellent products at the outlet, becoming objects for imitating the entire industry, which are pleasant and easy to use. Of course, over time, the first scheme always wins, but if it were not for the second, we would move forward very slowly in any sense of this expression. And I would very much like to have more products created according to the second scheme, because thanks to them life becomes better, life becomes more fun.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/96895/
All Articles