Reflections

Segmentation

The first skill I understand better after this course is the topic of segmentation and its importance. Our group chose a very risqué segment – the Cougar, so it was very important that we appropriately assessed this market segment because it is very distinct from the segment of women who are in their same age group. They have different needs and behaviors, and it was important that we addressed those needs when making and designing our product.

Segmentation allows us to create a product that will allow a company and consumer to work in harmony. With appropriate segmentation, the consumer benefits by receiving a product that is designed with their needs and behaviors in mind. From the company's perspective, it ensures a happy consumer who will be loyal to their product and continually drive growth for their organization.

I understand segmentation better now because our group was forced to explore a great deal to understand more about our target market. The Cougar is a very difficult market to access, so it was extremely important that we gather as much information as possible. The personal interviews that we conducted throughout the semester provided great insight into the Cougar's lifestyle so we appropriately segment them. With proper segmentation, we were able to create a product that was distinct enough to cater to unique needs of the Cougar. For example, while most women who are in the same age range of a Cougar have families and are therefore preparing meals for their spouses and children, the Cougar typically lives alone. This characteristic of our segment was something very important to keep in the back of our minds because it affected the type of product we decided to create. An appliance that enabled quick, individual-sized meals would appeal to the Cougar, while it might not necessarily appeal to the average 30-55 year old woman. Had we not appropriately segmented our market with this insight, we may have created a product that would not have appealed to them.

Innovation and Creativity

The second skill that I understand better after this project and class is the creative process. Our group struggled when thinking of what to create for the Cougar because they were such a unique and new market segment. Addressing their specific needs and behaviors required a lot of innovation and creativity. Creativity is "an idea that is both useful and novel", while innovation is "applied creativity".

Our group initially struggled with the creative process because it seemed like every product that we wanted to design for the Cougar already existed. It was not until the Innovation and Creativity lecture that we really started to understand why we were struggling with this process.

Initially, we thought that we would have to come up with a completely novel idea that no one had ever heard of. What we failed to see, and what the lecture appropriately showed us, is that creativity is sometimes more simple than that. Taking a product that already exists and making changes to it to address a certain customer is considered an innovation. With that learning, we were able to come up with more product ideas for the Cougar. With our new insight from the lecture, we were able to take an existing product and make slight modifications that addressed the Cougar's needs. Rather than trying to re-invent the wheel, we took the approach of making the wheel better.

Group Project Experience

I had an enjoyable experience with my team throughout the project. I was able to learn from my other team members, which I found extremely beneficial. Overall, with the different input from each group member, I think we came up with a product that was much better than what we could have come up with individually. For example, when one person would introduce an idea, another team member would add on to that idea, making positive changes for the final product. Conversely, if an idea was unfavorable in the eyes of one team member, constructive suggestions were offered to make the idea better.

Secondly, working in a team on this project allowed us to specialize in areas that we were most comfortable. Some group members were much more comfortable than others in approaching and interviewing Cougars while others were not. Others had a knack for interpreting the data that we gathered. With this specialization, we were able to produce quality work in an efficient manner. Each member was focused on a specific task and able to perfect their objective, rather than having to focus on various tasks that they might not necessarily excel at.

Lastly, working in a team is always a great way to practice interacting with others. Not only is it fun to get to know your team members throughout the process, you learn to appreciate everyone's differences and opinions. Because our topic was so controversial, I had to ensure that the ideas and opinions I brought were not offensive to my team members or to the market segment.

I really enjoyed my team and had a great time working with them on the project. I am always in favor of working in a group situation rather than on an individual project because there is so much more that can be achieved in a group environment. My belief was reinforced with this project and I know that we produced something that we could not have done alone.

Class Reflection

This class was extremely interesting and fun for me. I enjoyed the free structure of the class because it enabled the students to drive their own learning. You were the driving instructor, just guiding us along, but each individual was responsible for what they learned and how much they wanted to learn. I think that learning should be an internal desire, not a forced activity, and the setup of the class allowed for students to explore this inner drive.

I always imagined college to be like this when I was in high school. No hand-holding from the professor and freedom to learn and engage yourself in the way that works best for you. Thanks for your flexibility and for a great semester!

Music? To be free or not to be free?

I randomly selected Michael Yang's blog and read the post about iTunes and the cost of acquiring mp3s online. I agree with most of what Michael says, but have some additional points that I would like to touch upon.

I was once an avid downloader of illegal mp3s. However, when my friend was fined $3,000 for illegally downloading, I figured the benefit of hearing new jams was not worth hearing my parents tirelessly yell at me for my insolence and irresponsibility. I would much rather prefer silence in that instance. Ever since I stopped downloading music, I have a new appreciation for music. I value it so much more and have a lot more sympathy for music artists. I understand and support rightfully-purchased music. In my opinion, music should not be free. However, I can see Michael's point of view as well. Growing up with free music makes it very hard as a consumer to pay $1 per song.

Where I have some differences in view is how music providers should handle the issue. I agree that it would be nice if iTunes offered more discounts, but it would be extremely difficult for them to do so if they want to turn profits. Apple adds additional benefits to their user such as album art cover, seamless synchronization to your iPhone or iPod, and complete organization in one module without need to convert media files to proper file extensions, whereas competitors who offer cheaper downloads do not offer these services or experiences. Therefore, the price Apple charges is a premium for the experience they are providing. Apple's model with iTunes has obviously proven successful because thousands of people around the world use it to purchase their music. In fact, from 2004 to 2006, legal downloads went from 0-6% of revenues for record companies. In 2005, digital music sales tripled to $1.1 billion.

Although I disagree with the idea of discounts, one idea of Michael's that I really liked was the buy-1-get-1 promo. I think Michael's intent was to get 2 popular songs for the price of 1, but I think this would potentially hurt Apple's business. One way Apple could still provide this offering is to offer 1 free song from a lesser-known, up-and-coming artist that has similar sounds and style to the artist being downloaded. With their new Genius technology, this would be a great way for Apple to capitalize on their music genome, please their customer by providing them more offerings, while simultaneously not hurting their business. Additionally, there is the side benefit of promoting the music industry in general. The artist of the free download would be receiving free exposure and good music will continue to permeate through society. This free song option could be optional for the consumer, but I think many avid music listeners would enjoy this type of service. Many music listeners enjoy hearing new artists to add to their playlists, and this would be a great way for them to do so without hurting their wallets.

So while Michael makes an excellent point that the $1/song seems like a lot of money, I honestly believe that music providers can dodge the price issue by focusing on customer experience. By continually adding value and services to music downloads, Apple can and should continue to charge $1/song. Musical artists deserve their hard-earned money.

I think that people are beginning to change their mentality about downloading music. Many people are switching over and starting to pay for their music because 1) they see value in it, 2) they realize it's cheaper than a lot of other things they purchase, 3) they are afraid of getting caught, or 4) they just feel plain guilty for their unethical actions. With all these things combined, I do not think digital music providers should worry too much about download prices. Historical trends have already shown that people are more inclined to purchase music than they were in the past and I believe this trend will continue into the future. By continually adding value to digital music, music providers will continue to see more and more people legally downloading music.

While the stance I take seems largely from the company's perspective or interest, I see a greater alignment in the mentality of consumer and company. Both are increasingly concerned about ethics and the protection of the music industry, so I believe that this common purpose in mind will allow companies and customers alike to benefit. Companies can continue to charge what they do, but offer more services. With added services for the same price, customers will be getting more bang for their buck. In the long run, I see it as an advantage to both parties.

Phone Wars – G1 and iPhone Stir Up a Storm

1. Introduction
   
   1. Phone manufacturers of the Blackberry Storm, Google G1, and Apple iPhone must be very cognizant of consumer insights because they battling one another while trying to cater to very distinct market segments.
      
      1. History of cell phones
         
      2. General description of each phone
         
      3. Different market segments targeted
         
         1. Business-focused – Blackberry Storm
            
         2. Technology-focused – Google G1
            
         3. Innovation/trend-focused – Apple iPhone
            
      4. Needs of different markets and how they are addressed
         
      5. Ability to bridge the gap between corporate and personal user
         
      6. Brand loyalties
         
2. Body
   
   1. Through time, cell phones have adapted to meet the ever changing needs of a constantly "wired" consumer.
      
      1. Cell phones started as devices to make a call while away from home. Address books were not available and size was not an issue.
         
      2. With more people realizing the value of the convenience provided by a cell phone coupled with advanced technology, smaller sizes and new features like phone books, datebooks, and cameras were added.
         
      3. The Blackberry was the first to revolutionize the cell phone for the corporate user. Email and calendars were primary functions that differentiated this phone from others. The Smartphone was born.
         
      4. Research in Motion (the creator of the Blackberry), decided to create this corporate-focused phone to the regular cell phone user with the Blackberry Pearl.
         
      5. Since then, features that were initially intended for the corporate user have entered the phones for the regular user.
         
      6. Apple copied many features of Blackberry but tailored their phone for a mass personal-use market.
         
      7. Google G1 later entered the market for the more technology-adept cell phone user.
         
   2. Each phone has similar, yet distinct features.
      
      1. Blackberry Storm is a corporate-style phone with the daily consumer in mind.
         
         1. Blackberry email and calendar are unique functions that many corporate users are already familiar with.
            
         2. Modeled after the iPhone, touch-screen functions make the Storm unlike any other Blackberry, marrying corporate and consumer functionalities.
            
         3. Touch-screen indention allows users to have a responsive feedback when inputting data.
            
      2. On top of corporate-style functions, Apple iPhone introduces customizability and entertainment value for the regular consumer.
         
         1. Users have access to similar datebook and calendar functions of Blackberrys.
            
         2. The iPhone adds additional entertainment and customizability features.
            
         3. The iPhone is the first to introduce downloadable applications to modify the product.
            
         4. iPhone introduces innovative touch-screen function to appeal to mass market.
            
      3. Google G1 has many corporate features but further increases customizability with their open-source platform, Android.
         
         1. G1 users have access to Gmail, Google calendar, Google maps on their device.
            
         2. Android is a completely open-source platform, taking customizability to the maximum level. Users can view and edit code to their liking to modify the operation of their mobile device.
            
   3. There is a clear separation in the cell phone market.
      
      1. Research in Motion (RIM) has always focused on corporate users.
         
         1. Because Blackberry was the first to allow users to sync with their contacts, emails, and calendars, corporations have typically signed contracts with RIM.
            
         2. According to a corporate IT survey, nearly 75% of corporations say they use RIM products as their company's Smartphone.
            
      2. Apple entered to cater more to the personal cell phone user.
         
         1. The iPhone brought many features that RIM brought to corporate users to the general user in a more user-friendly interface.
            
         2. Touch screen operability, sleek design, and general innovativeness that Apple is known for were added features while still including corporate phone functions for the general user.
            
      3. Google focuses more on the high-tech consumer who desires customization.
         
         1. While they also focused on the general consumer, they designed their phone to a more niche market – the high-tech user.
            
         2. With the Android operating system that the G1 runs on, developers have unlimited access to applications, whereas there are more restrictions for iPhone application developers.
            
         3. The open-source model for the G1 appeals to high-tech individuals who are attracted to the ability to use and share any application created by any user.
            
         4. The open-source platform also allows the greatest amount of customizability, as developers can freely view and make changes to existing code.
            
   4. Needs of different markets and how they are addressed
      
      1. Corporate users have specific needs for their communication devices.
         
         1. The ability to streamline communication is extremely important, which is achieved through the high usage rate of corporations on the Blackberry network. There are no communication hiccups due to the seamless usage of Blackberrys in companies.
            
         2. Due to privacy issues, RIM allows corporations to disable the camera.
            
         3. Enterprise mobility requires protocol and GRC (Governance, Risk, and Compliance.     
            
            1. The current inability to customize your Blackberry with an app store like that of the iPhone and G1 increases the control a corporation has on each user's mobile device.
               
            2. IT managers can purchase applications through FoneWare that are specific to a company's needs, but each end user cannot individually customize their phone.
               
         4. Due to high levels of travel of many professionals, the ability to create and modify documents on the go is extremely important.
            
            1. The Storm allows typing/editing of documents in landscape mode while other phones do not.
               
            2. This increases legibility of a document and ease of modification due to increased viewing space in landscape mode.
               
      2. Many regular end users desire innovation, trendiness, and customization.
         
         1. The iPhone, like many other Apple products, was revolutionary with its fully touch-screen capability.
            
         2. Because regular end users have no restrictions bound by corporate protocol, the ability to play and download games, stream video and music, are attractive and valuable to the segment.
            
      3. High-tech users desire the ability to openly share their programs and completely customize their products.
         
         1. The Android operating system has no limitations on which applications can be released to the general public, unlike applications for the iPhone, which must be tested and approved before release.
            
         2. The open source model of the Android operating system, which is what the G1 runs on, allows high-tech users to have almost complete control of the way their phone looks and operates.
            
   5. While the G1 and iPhone have tried to bridge the gap between corporate user and regular user, the Storm attempts to close that gap even more.
      
      1. The iPhone and G1 took many of the features common to the first Blackberrys and integrated them into their mobile devices. Additional features were added to the "corporate features", making it even friendlier to the regular user.
         
      2. However, corporations already have a buy-in with the Blackberry network, making it difficult and unattractive for them to switch to iPhones or G1s.
         
         1. The Blackberry Storm has all the same features that the corporate user is already familiar with and additional consumer features like touch-screen capabilities and music and video accessibility.
            
         2. Many regard the Storm as the iPhone for the corporate user.
            
   6. Brand loyalties pay a large part in the user's selection.
      
      1. Blackberry loyalists are likely to have grown accustomed to the interface of Blackberry products.
         
      2. Apple users appreciate the sleekness of their products and constant innovations.
         
      3. Google users are loyal to Google products, and the G1 has a network of Google products (Gmail, Google calendar, Google maps, Google Search) preloaded on the device.
         
      4. While brand loyalties are extremely in the selection process of a phone, being able to cater to a consumer's needs are equally important. If one phone is better at addressing the specific needs of a consumer, brand loyalty can be overridden.
         
3. Conclusion
   
   1. To fully capture cell phone users across segments, phone manufacturers need to cater to the distinct needs of both corporate users and regular consumers in one product.
      
4. What I have learned from this study
   
   1. It is extremely difficult to successfully meet the needs of multiple segments with just one product.
      
   2. No one phone has been able to fully capture both the corporate and consumer market.
   
   
   
   I'm not quite sure whether or not I should include a section about brand loyalties in my paper because I don't know if I could really tie this into consumer insights.  What do you think?

Quantifying the Unquantifiable

The whole point of this class is to understand the importance of gaining consumer insights. To be a successful marketer, it’s imperative that we listen to what the consumer wants, tailor a product to their needs, and ensure we put a product that meets those needs in the market. Of all people, Americans understand the importance of meeting the consumer’s needs. Of any single country alone, the US is estimated to spend the most on marketing research – a whopping $6.7 billion dollars. The UK is a distant second with $2 billion spent each year on market research.

With all this money spent on marketing research, one would hope that it guarantees success for a company. It seems unlikely that a company would want to spend millions of dollars to better understand their target market, only to see unrealized gains. But there are still those that question whether or not there really are benefits.

Are marketing costs really worth it? This is an extremely difficult question to answer, especially because marketing is always seen as a cost center rather than a profit center. And from an outsider’s perspective, I can see how this is true. When a company says they spent $1 million in the last quarter on finding out how they can be innovative yet still meet the consumer’s needs, how does this translate to the bottom line? How is the marketing department supposed to prove to the upper echelon that the money the company spent so hard in earning was spent surveying the population? It seems impossible for marketers to turn around and tell management that for every dollar spent on marketing research, $x dollars was brought in as sales.

But from a marketer’s perspective, I can also see the flip-side to this argument. It seems silly for other divisions of a company to undervalue marketing. Without marketers, important insights would never be gathered for the company’s use. New product ideas, brand re-imaging, and product repositioning would be done without any support or reasoning behind the change. As a company without market research, you would be making assumptions about what the consumer really wanted. These assumptions are extremely dangerous and could greatly depreciate the bottom line of a company. With that said, not having marketing research kills the bottom line because it is very easy to make the wrong move.

Even if we were to argue that marketing research is a cost center, it still leads to the benefit for a company.
If we were to look at the value chain, we see that marketing is one of the last primary activities that lead to margins. With that link in the chain, companies create new products and techniques to better address consumer needs. By catering more to the consumer, the target end-user is more likely to purchase, which will directly drive sales. But if we remove marketing and marketing research, there is huge potential of driving the consumer away. We may think a new product innovation is what the consumer is looking for, but could actually be the exact opposite. This leads to unhappy consumers, which results in fewer purchases, lower sales numbers, and therefore a cut to the bottom line.

I think this issue of understanding the value of marketing and market research is especially interesting during the current economic climate. Everyone always says that marketing is the first thing to go when things are financially unstable and am appalled at this. It is imperative that companies continue to go out and research the population and gather, analyze, and make conclusions about the insights of buyers. It is imperative that we always stay on top of what they are saying and use their insights in making decisions about the direction of the company.

In finance class, we learn that the most important thing to a company is to maximize shareholder value. The way to do that is to add to the bottom line and return dividends to the owners of the company. And how do you do that? Sell your goods and services. The way to do that is to make sure that your goods and services really match what the consumer is looking for. And how do we do that?

Gain and understand customer insight.

The Persuaders

Dr. Rapaille, labeled as a “marketing guru” in the PBS special The Persuaders, was tasked to find out what really makes the consumer tick. What really drives a consumer to behave a certain way? Rapaille and many others believe that consumers present reasons that are inconsistent with behavior, so Rapaille studies people to understand the underlying or hidden messages that consumers present when reasoning their purchases.

Coming from a psychiatric background, Rapaille was forced to decode the issues of mute, autistic children. Applying his experience and learnings from his previous work, Rapaille helps marketers decode consumer actions. To do this, he uses a 3-step technique in focus groups to get to the bottom of human behavior. The 3-step technique involves:

1) Listening to a consumer’s reason
2) Getting to the emotional aspect of their behaviors
3) Tapping into their primal core to find the true rationale behind their behavior

In the first stage of understanding reason, Rapaille makes it seem like the participants are in a regular focus group. In the study that PBS showed, Rapaille was trying to decode what luxury meant to the consumer. By asking them to associate words with the word “luxury”, participants were able to show that they were logical and intelligent. Rapaille has discovered that people have a tendency to show these characteristics, so this stage allows them to do so. He is not really interested in the content of their feedback; he is just trying to let them get beyond this stage so he can move to the next two, more important, stages.

After a short break, he asks the participants to tell a story to convey “luxury” to a 5 year old from a foreign planet. This process enables Rapaille to tap into the emotional viewpoints of the participants about the word “luxury”. No longer are they trying to show that they are rational, logical thinkers, they are now just trying to convey a thought to a simple-minded 5 year old. This is a very important step to Rapaille because he is now beginning to really understand the most basic meanings of “luxury” to the consumer. They are being more simplistic in their descriptions, as one would be when speaking to a 5 year old.

At this point, the participants are utterly confused as to what is going on. They are given another break and then in for another surprise in the last session, or stage, or the 3-step technique. To tap into the primal core of the participants, Rapaille tries to get the focus group members in the most vulnerable state as possible. After letting them relax and rest in darkness, he tries to capture their thoughts right when they wake. According to the marketing guru, the thoughts of an individual when they wake up in the morning reflect their “primal urges”. By stimulating this state of mind, he is able to capture dormant thoughts that are not readily accessible in other states of mind. Studying the thoughts expressed upon awakening, Rapaille is able to identify the “reptilian hot buttons that compel [them] to action”.

While Rapaille does not convey exact findings about the public's associations with the word luxury, he does let the audience know that the reptile brain is the most important, latent aspect that we overlook or fail to discover when considering consumer insights. The reptile brain contains all our first impressions and associations of things, and these impressions and associations are what influence our daily activity and decisions. For example, he coded SUVs to mean "dominance", causing many SUV manufacturers to build larger vehicles with tinted windows.

With the 3-stage technique, Rapaille convinces many Fortune 500 executives that there is a simple code to understanding what makes the consumer tick. Based on testimonies, executives honestly believe that this technique has allowed Rapaille tap into the hidden drivers that bring a consumer to behave a certain way.

The second part of this blog asks that we evaluate the marketing technique of Song Airlines. Specifically, we are asked whether we think the image that Song has tried to exude was a good or bad idea and areas that we think could have been improved.

I disagreed with the strategy that Song Airlines employed. They identified themselves as a low-cost airline, but their marketing did not express this at all to the consumer. From their commercials and in-store marketing, it seemed like they were more of a high-end airline. With offerings like organic meals and retail outlets, it appeared that they were appealing to a consumer that had high demands rather than the no-frill consumer looking to put the smallest dent in their wallet. As one of the marketing team members of Song said, low-price airline seekers are only looking for a cheap ticket. The strategy that Song used did not show this at all. In fact, if I had seen the commercial done by Mr. Spade, I would have had no idea that Song was catering to the price-conscious consumer. From the commercial, I drew that Song was an airline that was catered to the middle-class, family oriented consumer.

Some things that the airline did well were the “training” of the employees and the focus on the importance of the logo. By making sure that they hired a specific type of employee that was especially “song”, the company was able to convey a very unique message. Their focus on the logo was also well done because it helped solidify a concrete brand image. Both the employees and the logo were consistent with the fun feeling that I got from the brand.

One thing that I did not like about the Song branding was the interior they chose for the airlines. I know they were trying to convey the youthfulness and spunk of the company, but I felt it made the airline seem very unprofessional. By using extremely bright colors for the upholstery, they seemed like a childish brand that would not necessarily appeal to most consumers. Because a plane is a place you hope to relax before and after your busy trip, distracting colors would probably not please the flyer.

One other flaw I saw was the fact that Song was trying to create buzz that only created confusion. Specific examples include the green-suited men with monitors around their necks and the physical retail stores. This definitely caught the attention of the consumer, but they were only left confused about what Song was. Song should have made much clearer messages to the consumer if they decided to use these avenues to create awareness. They were adding more to the clutter rather than standing out in the mess of information.

Who to trust?

As this class looks further into customer insights, it was interesting to see Malcolm Gladwell’s perspective on the topic. In the article and both digital medias that featured Gladwell’s insight, he interestingly points out the irony of consumer feedback.

Instead of focusing so heavily on customer insights, Gladwell suggests the perils of them. For example, he discusses the example of the Aeron chair, which was an unexpected hit after terrible reviews from the public. Everyone said they didn’t like the way it looked; that it was wiry and unlikely to support them with its mesh fabric. Despite these reviews, the Aeron went on to be the most successful office chair in the history of office chairs. In fact, it has won itself a permanent spot in the New York Museum of Modern Art.

Trust no one unless you have eaten much salt with him”
- Cicero

This quote applies to the lesson that Gladwell teaches in the Aeron chair example. Although it is important to listen to what the consumer says, it is even more valuable to take their insights with a grain of salt. Gladwell makes a very valid and interesting point that it is very difficult to get to people’s heart and truly get to what they think. Often times, the consumer does not know what he wants or just cannot find the words to express what they seek. Other times, they just don’t tell the truth.

Knowing that consumers often don’t convey what truly goes through their minds, it is important as marketers when doing research that we are careful not to completely believe what they say. While I venture to say that their personal insights are truthful about 80% of the time, there is a pretty substantial probability that they aren’t being completely honest or just can’t describe what they are feeling.

Just from speculation, I suspect that consumers misrepresent their desires or wants in two instances. The first is when they are asked to convey their feelings about something sensitive. The other is when they are being asked about something they are unfamiliar with. For example, if someone were to ask me about a product for personal hygiene, there is a very high probability that I would lie about my preferences in fear of them finding out too much about my personal space. Or if someone asked me about golf clubs, I probably would unconsciously misrepresent my answer just because I am not an avid golfer. (In fact, I’m quite bad. I often swing without hitting the ball) However, if I was an experienced golfer, I probably would give a different answer because I knew so much about what I did and did not like.

With that being said, I think it’s important that market researchers or business people be very careful when conducting surveys to analyze customer preferences. To prevent misrepresentation of true consumer insights, strategically hide sensitive questions or make sure that you ask the right people about their consumer preferences.

A second lesson that can be learned from Gladwell’s book and talks is the importance of first impressions. The cliché quote that says that impressions are everything is true in some sense. In Blink, Gladwell talks about how the packaging of different brandies led to either success or failure. In the example, a brandy was losing market share to a competitor, although tasters had more positive associations with their product than their counterpart. After heavy pondering, the company determined their loss in sales was due to their packaging. After changing their bottle to match more like their competitor’s, they were able to regain market share. In a similar example during TEDtalks, Gladwell attributes Grey Poupon’s success to the high-class image exuded to consumers. Both examples show how impressions can change consumer behavior.

I can attest to the importance of impressions as a consumer. Gladwell seems to talk/write a lot about food, so I’m going to use a food example as well. Besides, it’s probably the easiest thing for a foodie like me to talk about. Because I am such a foodie, I like to try everything that is considered edible. As you can imagine, eating vast amounts of food can be a hazard to the waistline, so I always try to eat healthy whenever possible.

Eating healthy is hardly possible when you have a sweet tooth like mine. Cakes, pies, ice cream, anything that uses at least a cup of sugar to make or bake, sits high on my list of things I like to eat. So this is where the conflict arises: I love eating sweets, but I try to eat healthy at the same time. The way I allow myself to indulge in my favorite things is by selecting foods that appear to be healthy or healthier. So if I were given the option between a chocolate cake and a chocolate cake topped with berries, I would go for the berry-topped slice of heaven. Obviously, the fact that the cake is topped with berries makes it no less unhealthy, but I perceive it to be healthier than a slice without any fruit atop. In other words, it makes the right impression on me to trick myself to eat it.

So the lesson to be learned here is that as a marketer, it is extremely important to take into consideration what kind of impression your product makes on a consumer. Your product may be great and better than the competition, but if it is inappropriately presented, then you have lost a potential customer. But as mentioned earlier, understanding how you can make the right impression is the tricky part. So it seems like there’s a never-ending circle when it comes to customer insights. You try to find out how to make the right impression. So naturally, you ask the consumer.  You make changes to meet their needs/desires, only to find out that their insights were unreliable.  So now you need their insights again and you're back to where you started from.

This leads me to an overarching lesson that I think we as business people can draw from Malcolm Gladwell. I believe the overarching lesson stems from the need to trust yourself. I firmly believe that the spirit of entrepreneurship thrives on faith in your own idea. So take it and run with it. Konosuke Matsushita, founder of Panasonic, relates to this point when he said:

“No matter how deep a study you make. What you really have to rely on is your own intuition and when it comes down to it, you really don't know what's going tohappen until you do it.”

Customer surveys may tell you one thing, but sometimes your own insight is just as important as the consumer’s. Your thoughts and insights may better represent what the consumer wants than you think. After all, it’s easier to get to the root of your own heart than someone else’s.

Just imagine what would have happened if Herman Miller decided to cancel the launch of his chair. This world would be missing out on the greatest office chair known to mankind. So when the entrepreneur within you decides to release something that doesn’t get the highest ratings, don’t let it get you down. If you have enough reason to believe in its success, follow your instinct. You too are a consumer. Listen to your own insight every once in a while.

Phone Wars: Android and iPhone Create a Storm

Imagine being able to carry a computer in your pocket with you to work, church, or school without worries that it will weigh you down. Imagine being able to listen to music whenever you want, communicate with whoever you want, and create any document you want at the convenience of your fingertips at any time of the day. What device does all this in such a compact casing?

A laptop? Smaller.

A netbook? Even smaller.

A cell phone. What was once a brick-sized device that could store maybe a 100 contacts and was intended to only make and receive emergency phone calls, the cell phone can now do so much more. Cell phones of 2009 are slim, can take pictures, text, check and compose emails, create, review, and revise documents, browse the web, and stream video. It's amazing to see what phones are now used for. I'd even venture to say that over 50% of cell phone usage is not to make or receive calls. With these new demands of cell phone users, how are cell phone providers reacting? How are they staying one step ahead of the consumer and making sure that they beat the competitor?

The first real revolutionary cell phone (in my opinion) was the Blackberry, which was released in 1999. With a full QWERTY style keyboard and internet access, a device with similar capabilities of its size was unseen and unheard of. But this phone was limited to the corporate user. Research in Motion (RIM), creator of the Blackberry, understood the corporate user fairly well. They provided him/her with enterprise email, a calendar, and wireless internet. But RIM soon realized that there was a segment out there that they weren't tapping into. Cell phones were used by everyone, so why had they focused only on the corporate user?

Enter the Blackberry Pearl. The release of the Blackberry Pearl blurred the lines between personal and work life. More compact and "hip"-looking, RIM was beginning to understand the regular cell phone user. This was the cell phone user who was still unfamiliar with 3G and WiFi; the cell phone user who had not heard of a smartphone or its functions. Blackberry was slowly introducing new functions to the cell phone user.

Aside from big techies, hi-tech phone functions were relatively foreign to everyone. But as time progressed, more and more people began to learn about these new functions. Wireless capabilities and constant connection to the world-wide-web became a common demand. So Apple decided to meet those demands and more.

Before the iPhone, Blackberry was the only large player that had added functions other than texting and phone calling. While geared more towards the regular cell phone user and not the corporate user, the iPhone added features that were unimaginable by the cell phone user. Touch screen and streaming videos from the internet, the iPhone user was getting a whole new experience from their cell phone.

The iPhone was much more successful than the Pearl at capturing the regular cell phone user market segment. By allowing users to “customize” their phones by downloading iPhone Apps for a small fee, users were taking more ownership to their phones. Apple set the stage for future phones to come. Google’s Android/G1 project took customizability to another level. By catering to the open-source user, anyone can write and share programs for free.

So where was RIM during all these releases? While Blackberry was sitting back and watching all these new competitors pop up in its landscape, it decided to create a Storm of its own, literally. Blackberry may have been less successful than the other two at capturing the personal cell phone user, but Blackberry knew what it was good at – selling phones to the corporate user segmentation. The Blackberry Storm was RIM’s reaction to the iPhone and G1. Due to high switching costs, corporations are likely to continue to use Blackberry products. But those that wish they could carry an iPhone or G1 into their office meeting have a product that is friendlier for the corporate environment.

The next moves of cell phone makers are unpredictable. As new market segments continually sprout up, cell phone makers have to tailor experiences to fit their needs. And with so many options to choose from, cell phone makers have to make sure that their product fits exactly what the consumer is looking for.

This topic of cell phone wars interests me because I am a huge fan of technology. As an early adopter, I’m always reading up on the newest technologies and trying out beta versions of the latest gadget or software.

The topic of phone wars relates to our class because it addresses the need of cell phone makers to tailor customer experiences for specific market segments.

In Fortune’s January 19, 2009 publication, I found an interesting article about iPhone trying to go corporate after the release of the Blackberry Storm. It discusses how Apple may have found a roadblock because it is not as corporate friendly as its rival.

It’s hard to tell what the next move of Google, Apple, or RIM will be as they try to stay ahead of each other and ahead of customer’s expectations. Until one phone maker finds a way to truly capture the entire cell phone market, the phone wars will continue. So pull on your silicone cover and get ready to text for help because it might get bloody.