When the Value Prop of Juice is Unclear
You may have heard by now that not all juicers are made equal. Some, it seems, are over-engineered after $120M in funding has to find a development target. The problem isn’t merely about being unable to turn a big ship with a small rudder (ie, Big Design Up Front), but whether product validation at various stages is enough to turn the wheel to begin with.
When product goals outweigh the necessary constraints on vision, the resulting oversight can create a tumorous condition.
I’m certain that prototyping and consumer testing were part of the two-year lifecycle of this product. I do wonder, however, what role the resultant findings played in steering design choices; or more importantly, if the product’s value prop was ever truly tested.
On the surface, it makes sense: a juicer to fit the unknown ‘gap’ in the market in the same way Keurig did for coffee; the convenience! Digging a little deeper though, it doesn’t seem to hold up. Packets of fruit specially made to be specially squeezed? As much as many turn their noses up to pod-made coffee, packaged fruit squeeze bags seem even less appetizing.
But the biggest question lies not even in user validation of the desire for the product or the medium, but in the relative cost of the product to that desire. A Keurig unit at scale costs as little as $60 retail, and the effective output — while not suitable for some palettes — is pretty decent at about 50¢-per-serving price point.
A Juicero is $400; necessarily because of the incredible complexity of the device. The proprietary fruit packs start at $5 per serving. Not bad for fresh juice — but this isn’t fresh juice. The packs themselves are also feats of (food) engineering… but is the resulting combination worth the cost?
In the end, one cannot brew coffee with their bare hands. But one can make Juicero juice with them. And that is a UX Folly to be sure.
