Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
> I'm sure there are many great products that came about with zero customer > input - products born of a need that an individual had. Well, the designer can be a user too, so that is a form of user input (not customer)...but this is an extreme. Find me one recent technology product, and one that actually sold and made money, where someone designed it with absolutely no potential customer input...no informal discussions with others, etc. Maybe you can find one or two, I don't know, but whose going to argue that the exception should be the norm? Is what you are proposing here? I'm proposing that it makes good sense to involve the customer in the design of a product, and the more efficient you are at doing this, the higher the probability that you'll design a product that sells and meets user needs. Why would you consider comparing a looping device with a LaserJet a bad or invalid comparison. Both have hardware. Both have software. Both have processors and memory. Both use some form of propietary design. Both target users that will need at least some degree of technical knowledge or skill to use them. Both are released by companies, in most cases, by companies that have marketing and R&D departments. What would you rather compare looper design with, a mouse trap? Let's build a better mousetrap/looper. I doubt very much whether marketing and R&D folks in companies like Boss are spending thousands of dollars to re-invent the whole wheel of how to market and design a product. They can't afford to do this. Everyone leveages best practice for their own benefit. These engineers, and marketing professionals, belong and subscribe to, or at least keep up to date on industry standard practices for design, etc. There are societies, professions programs..then there is the fact that many marketing folks with education in marketin or business, will have been exposed to similar methodologies for marketing and designing products. Now why can't we make the comparison? I worked in R&D. If I had the same job for Boss, I have not doubt I'd be using similar processes to document product features, requirements, etc. It makes good sense....good, good sense. (trivia: what song did I just quote here?) > Isn't there a guy at Apple that gets designer awards for essentially > dictatorial control of lines like the iPod and powerbook? OTOH, maybe if > he used focus groups, he would have found out that people don't like > products that scratch so easily... (but the ipod-invisi fixes that > problem, eh?) Probably, and there are guys like that in HP as well, who work in HP Labs. They invent ideas. But that isn't product marketing and R&D. These guys are thinktanks for coming up with the general idea of a product..they don't design it down to the feature level. There are whole teams of poeple in different divisions that do that. Kris Kris At any rate, > comparing R&D of loopers to laser printers is a bit of stretch. > > Isn't there a guy at Apple that gets designer awards for essentially > dictatorial control of lines like the iPod and powerbook? OTOH, maybe if > he used focus groups, he would have found out that people don't like > products that scratch so easily... (but the ipod-invisi fixes that > problem, eh?) > > > At 2005.12.30 11:41 AM, Kris Hartung wrote: > > > Ah! Built in mediocrity. I'd much rather see the result of Bob's vision > > > unadulterated, than some marketeer's compromise. > > > >Please validate your claim. Are saying there is a better and more efficient > >way to design a product that doesn't involve communicating directly with a > >decent sample of potential users, documenting the list of features, and then > >prioritizing them? Have you worked in a future product marketing team? They > >work hand in hand with R&D. One can't function without the other. > >