Market validation means "sales", right? The product is in beta and if we get a few pilot commitments...that's 'market validation', yes? That's one approach. But all too often we see engineered solutions in search of a problem or a need or want. Or we get frustrated because the market doesn't get it.
Usually you tell an entrepreneur that she needs "market validation" and the word "sales" comes to mind.
In my mind, marketing validation is an ongoing iterative process. And the most important validation is validating your understanding of the domain first: What's important to your customers? What really matters? Then you innovate for the solution. Validating iteratively...is this solution a match?
What if you were totally in touch with your customers' world through continuous interaction and feedback? You see through their eyes - living, breathing, touching, moving through their world.
Scott Bedbury, whom I mentioned in a recent post, in this interview with Tom Peters talks about market research and validation during the boom time at Nike.
We didn't do any traditional research in the way of pre-testing advertising or even product pre-testing at Nike.A lot of lab work but nothing in front of focus groups, at least in the seven years I was there. We did - in lieu of that - get very close to consumers. We didn't jump in front of them in focus groups or other qualitative environments and say, "What do you think of this line?" or "What do you think of this commercial?" We would spend hours just getting to understand the world they live in, and then very slowly and methodically move it to a discussion about sports and fitness, then to a discussion about footwear and apparel, then to brands, and then ultimately to Nike.
Too often a lot of companies are saying, "Let's test the new package design," and just jump in front of consumers and say, "What do you think of this one, versus that one, versus that one?" when what they probably should be doing is having a very deep and insightful discussion about how they feel about the world they live in and where the brand fits or doesn't fit.
The danger with this approach is it can be misused to justify hubris - the all-too-common I know the customer 'better' than he knows himself - if the marketer is not self-aware.
In numerous companies, I've been involved avoiding talking to customers early in the product development process is the rule not the exception. Why? Most often because they are so attached to their idea they don't want 'constructive' feedback. And if they have chatted with customers, they often aren't really listening.
I remember going to a particular retailers show during my SmallBiz (fictitious name, but true story) start-up days. (This is after we've determined the original e-commerce business model won't get funded and we're looking to morph it - basically the software-as-a-service model that Salesforce.com employs - for manufacturers). The manufacturers we spoke told us clear as day that they could never disintermediate their retailer channel and they told us why. The SmallBiz business development exec didn't like that sort of answer...but you'd never have known it. Since he was only looking for statements and facts that supported his case - all else was irrevelant - and thus he was enthused about the results of the conversations. I was a bit startled by his spin.
Selective hearing does not market validation make.
Taking pride in noticing other's blinders usually diverts attention away from our own. We're often oblivious to own our selective hearing and perception. It takes strength and awareness to really listen without filtering when you are attached or invested in a particular outcome or result. Armed with deep understanding - without preconceptions or expectations around the answer you'd prefer to hear - you can innovate on that and deliver a genuine solution.
OK, there's more. Let's say you've gotten to the essence of what resonates with and motivates and inspires your customers and you're ready to go build it. Is that enough? No, what Nike did also took an tremendous amount of conviction.
Most companies seek validation in all the wrong places. What if what your customers tell you seems to defy "conventional wisdom"? To swim against the current in the defined marketplace (i.e. competitors) or march to your own drummer and forgo the Hollywood-formula-du-jour that the VC's are funding takes an certain amount of gumption. Conveniently (really I started this post over a week ago triggered by Hugh's validation marketing post), this recent post from Philip Su, a Microsoft blogger (via Scoble) makes an excellent case study - well worth reading. Desiring to "fit" in to the industry norms is not exactly innovation and it's not exactly marketing either.
If your boss wants focus groups to prove that a new product is guaranteed to be a success, don't bother. If the focus group likes it, they're probably wrong. ... You don't need a book about creativity and brain-storming or team-building. You've already got a hundred (or a thousand) ideas your group doesn't have the guts to launch. - The Purple Cow, Seth Godin
Why? Why? Why do we succumb to convention? Why don't we have the guts to launch the new? That brings us to the topic of tomorrow's post: self-validation.
Comments