La legge del milk shake e l’importanza del cliente

Alcuni articoli fa, a proposito dello scontro fra Amazon e Hachette, ragionavo sul nuovo scenario che le case editrici si trovano ad affrontare: un mercato profondamente influenzato da internet e dove vengono stravolti i classici concetti di “tempo libero” e “passatempo”. Un mercato, quello attuale, nella quale il libro non deve più confrontarsi con altri libri, o al più con la televisione e il cinema, ma deve fare i conti con nuovi concorrenti molto più temibili come le app, i video giochi e lo streaming.

Un cambiamento che ha colto impreparati gli editori e reso, improvvisamente, obsolete consolidate e collaudate strategie editoriali. Oggi, ogni casa editrice ha di fronte a se, una nuova e più complessa sfida, una nuova e più complicata domanda a cui rispondere: Perché il lettore dovrebbe leggere il tuo libro piuttosto che giocare con lo smartphone o guardare una serie tv sul computer?

A sostegno della mia tesi vi offro questo articolo che ho rintracciato su Medium e scritto da tre docenti di Harward – Clayton M. Christensen, Scott Cook e Taddy Hall – nel lontano 2006. L’articolo intitolato What Customers want from your products affronta un difetto tipico delle aziende: pensare troppo ai propri segmenti di mercato e poco ai bisogni dei clienti.

By understanding the job and improving the product’s social, functional, and emotional dimensions so that it did the job better, the company’s milk shakes would gain share against the real competition — not just competing chains’ milk shakes but bananas, boredom, and bagels. This would grow the category, which brings us to an important point: Job-defined markets are generally much larger than product category-defined markets. Marketers who are stuck in the mental trap that equates market size with product categories don’t understand whom they are competing against from the customer’s point of view.
Notice that knowing how to improve the product did not come from understanding the “typical” customer. It came from understanding the job. Need more evidence?
Pierre Omidyar did not design eBay for the “auction psychographic.” He founded it to help people sell personal items. Google was designed for the job of finding information, not for a “search demographic.” The unit of analysis in the work that led to Procter & Gamble’s stunningly successful Swiffer was the job of cleaning floors, not a demographic or psychographic study of people who mop.
Why do so many marketers try to understand the consumer rather than the job? One reason may be purely historical: In some of the markets in which the tools of modern market research were formulated and tested, such as feminine hygiene or baby care, the job was so closely aligned with the customer demographic that if you understood the customer, you would also understand the job. This coincidence is rare, however. All too frequently, marketers’ focus on the customer causes them to target phantom needs

Puoi continuare a leggere l’articolo a questo link: What Customers want from your products.


Questo articolo è stato pubblicato anche su Book, Social & Publishing

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated Jacopo Orlando’s story.