Scarier than the boogeyman

I love the National Geographic Channel and its focus on wildlife. For some reason, I’m particularly drawn to how different species choose mates and the lengths to which they will go, from the plumes of feathers on a peacock to the amount of light a firefly will use to attract the opposite sex. I’m even more fascinated by the sheer number of similarities between us humans and the animal kingdom.

On a recent trip to Ross Park Mall, a female friend dragged me into Sephora for a time she described as “quickly”, which made me realize that the she might not know the definition of the term. While initially nerve-wracking, I decided to make this my own personal National Geographic special, using the experience to analyze how products were packaged and displayed, how lower-end products compared to premium products and what design theories were used to appeal to women. While I started in an area with a bunch of boxes and bottles, I ended up in a section with various items that resembled miniature lawn equipment, much of which made me realize that I am much less likely to injure myself using a table saw than an eyelash curler (Really? An Eyelash Curler? That’s necessary why?).

The entire experience went from fascinating to traumatizing when I came upon a box with this grooming machine that included three different attachments. I looked at the first one, which looked much like the trimmer you’d find on the back of an electric razor — that’s not so bad. Next down was a tool that looked just like an electric razor with little holes to cut hair — that was just a mini Norelco razor. Finally, I got to this dangerous shark-toothed looking thing. I looked at it, tilted my head like a beagle hearing a harmonica for the first time, and tried to figure out what the hell an “epilator” was. Then it hit me. Completely by reaction, I hunched over a little bit and protected certain areas of my anatomy, subconsciously afraid that the damn thing would jump out of and attack my nether regions. I also made a very loud oomph/ouch sound, causing my friend and two sales associated to run over to make sure I was ok. They found me standing there, completely blown away that anyone would use such a disturbing device. While they were laughing, I was still in shock. I believe I’m now one of the first diagnosed cases of epilatorphobia.

The lesson learned, beyond the fact that I will never feel entirely safe being in the same room as that devil machine, is that men and women really do have completely different shopping experiences and expectations. There was a shocking amount of white used in graphic design, as well as pastels (compared to the blues/browns/darker neutrals found in men’s products). I also saw a loose correlation between product shape and price — the more unique and feminine the shape of the bottle, the higher premium on the product. Another observation involved typography — while men’s products usually feature bold/black fonts, most of the products in Sephora used type that was thin or ultra-thin. Finally, I realized the motivation women have to achieve beauty is beyond what I had ever expected before (I’m an only child with a decidedly non-girly mom who has usually dated women who could get ready in 20 minutes or less). The point? For this category of woman, appeal to the need to be beautiful, make the packaging as much of an experience as possible, market the product in a way that it feels luxurious and price it such that the product feels rare (now with “hydrokryptocyanide!”) rather than eerily similar to what is in a Suave bottle in Giant Eagle. While it is a very crowded market, there seems to be a niche for a multitude of similar products — invoke those feelings of beauty and exclusivity, and you’ll carve out a niche.

New Heinz Ketchup Packet

After years of watching people fumble with the little packets tossed in fast food to-go, Heinz announced yesterday that it has invented a new packet with three times more ketchup that can be opened for dunking or squeezed onto a hot dog bun. Really? After more than 50 years (the original patent for the ketchup packet was issued in 1955) and years of customers cursing the design, the company FINALLY came up with something better. It made me realize that, while there might be start-up companies that can supplant technologies, there are still industries that have market leaders with legit competition.

This reminded me of the story of Alcoa, the multinational aluminum conglomerate, and the Fridge Pack. As one of the largest providers of aluminum to the world, it obviously sees the soft drink market as important to it’s success. In 1999, the company saw that cans were sort of hard to keep in your refrigerator, as evidenced by all of the “can storage” as-seen-on-TV items in the early 90′s. So, the company decided to rethink the way cans were sold and stored, and invented the 12-can fridge pack. Stacked 6×2 (as opposed to 3×4 or in 6-packs with the soft plastic carriers), people learned to just throw the box in the fridge and forget about it.

I think the Heinz example is reinforced by a Malcom Gladwell article about ketchup. In the article, he talks about how there are a gazillion different mustards, but really only one (Heinz) ketchup. Despite many attempts to make the “Grey Poupon” of ketchup, none of them have succeeded. People like Heinz and, according to taste tests, pretty much consider it perfect.

So, what does this mean? First, it’s pretty awesome to be considered an irreplaceable product. Heinz has no legitimate threat and, as a result, no need to push the envelope too hard with respect to ketchup innovation (purple ketchup, anyone??). Second, you have to be able to anticipate your weaknesses/threats and gauge whether or not to do something about it. In the Heinz case, there might have been a consumer demand for a new packet, but the threat wasn’t such that it made a change a top priority. For Alcoa, not making an adjustment could mean a shift of consumer behavior to other soft drink containers (could prove disastrous for the company).

Companies always need to be on the lookout and figure out if they’re in a Heinz position or an Alcoa position. If the former, it’s really not worth spending the money on R&D when you could be dedicating resources to other, more profitable projects (Heinz’s restaurant squeeze bottles are a good example). If you’re Alcoa, you have to be able to recognize if there’s a threat to your business and, if so, you might need to innovate on the margins of your core offering to shore up your relevance in the market. In the end, you have to listen to the customer and do the strategic math. If your customers are willing to put up with your inadequacies, good for you! If not, get working on a solution before it’s too late.

Having worked in a startup environment with very few resources, I was able to create some identity pieces and collateral that looked very professional for not a lot of money. I have incredibly high standards with respect to graphic design and print quality (true story: I will use a magnifying glass to look at how a piece is printed), so I have experimented with many solutions in order to maximize look on a dime (or penny, even). Here are my thoughts and some do’s and don’ts…

• Business Cards
  • Don’t — Avery “do it yourself” cards from big box retailers or VistaPrint — Printing cards yourself (with their shaggy perforated edges) looks exactly like you did them yourself (read: not a good thing).  VistaPrint cards are equally bad, with their flimsy card stock, stock designs and, if you go the free route, the little ad on the back.
  • Do — Overnightprints.com — While not perfect, OP has incredibly good quality business cards that are printed on heavy stock with extensive options (rounded corners, UV coatings, double-sided printing). Recently, they’ve added a premium quality line, though I’ve recently used their standard quality cards, which met my needs. In addition, their online designer has some quality templates if you’d like to go that route. Cost: $9.95 for 100 single-sided cards.
• Letterhead
  • Don’t — Print on an ink jet printer, use standard 20lb or 24lb paper in a laser printer if doing it yourself, or print in black and white if your logo is in color — Ink jet printers are simply not a quality enough print job to look professional for a business, so this is considered a universal rule. Paper weight has an effect on how a document feels. Finally, a black-and-white version of a logo on business letterhead isn’t acceptable.
  • Do — If doing it yourself, use a color laser printer (don’t print the letterhead first then put the document through again — the ink may smear and you could seriously damage your printer). Otherwise, Overnight Prints works as well. — Laser printers have gotten to the point where print quality is sufficient for a small business, though make sure you purchase a heaver stock or resume paper when printing letterhead-worthy documents. As for OP, again, similar experiences and the same online designer. Cost: For paper, $12 – $30 (150-500 sheets) at an office supply retailer; for OP, $39.95 for 100 sheets.
• Collateral
  • Don’t — Use pre-templated paper stock from an office supply retailer, print on anything lower than 24lb paper, use an ink jet printer or design any graphical elements that are supposed to go to the edge of the page (known as a full-bleed). — Template stock looks very cheesy, and the print quality from a laser printer rarely matches the color (or alignment) of the stock. Lower weight paper simply feels cheap. Finally, printers can’t print to the edge of the paper (brochures that do this are printed on larger paper then cut to size to produce the effect), leaving a white border that looks unprofessional.
  • Do — If doing yourself, use a design that has a white background without a bleed to the edge and make sure to print on heavier paper using a laser printer. Again, Overnight Prints has some high quality brochure printing, but admittedly a bit higher-priced. If you’re using an online printer like OP, take a look at their other options (rack cards, postcard-sized pieces, etc.) and get creative — Collateral is expensive, though printing yourself in this situation might be your best/cheapest option. As for online printing, rack cards, greeting cards and postcards can are a great way to minimize costs (I once made an eight-page booklet using four double-sided postcards and spiral-bound them). This will take some ingenuity, but the results can be fantastic. Cost: Cost of paper and ink to $109.95 four double-sided printing at OP, with many options in-between.
• Web
  • Don’t — Use a free site like Angelfire (yep, it’s still around) or fall for an online equivalent of an internet chop shop.
  • Do –  A couple of things…
    • Buy a domain name — Use a registrar (I use GoDaddy.com) and get your own domain name (yourcompany.com). If your company name isn’t available, do what you can to come up with something that works and is memorable. Also, keep it short. Cost: About $10/year
    • Put up a web site at the domain name — Several tools exist that allow you to put up a cheap web site without it looking cheap. GoDaddy has a service and there are many, many others. If you can’t afford a designer, do this. Cost: $40/year and up.
    • Add Google Analytics — It’s free and enables you to see what type of traffic you’re getting and who can see your site.
• E-mail
  • Don’t — Use free email services such as Hotmail, Gmail,  or Yahoo, or use free email that you might get from your internet service provider (@verizon.net, for instance).
  • Do — Use Google Apps. This free service from Google allows you to create many email accounts at the domain name you purchased (see above). Instead of the cheesy @yahoo.com email, you can use @yourbusiness.com. This gives considerable credibility to your business. In addition, you get all of the suite of cloud computing services Google provides. Cost: Free.

Here are a few other tips and tricks:

• Overnight Prints ALWAYS has coupon codes available for various print products, which can significantly reduce the cost of your printing (free business cards, free shipping, 50% off, etc.). Do a quick Google search to find these deals and make sure to opt-in to their emails, which feature very good deals.
• GoDaddy also has coupon codes, usually knocking off a couple of bucks off the domain name. It’s not a major deal, but as entrepreneurs know, every dollar counts.
• Avoid using print-and-stick labels — they really do not look very good.
• Do NOT use Comic Sans — Many companies attempt to make their company look more “human” by using Comic Sans in their collateral. From a graphic design perspective, there is never a reason to use the font. Stick to the basics (Arial, Times New Roman, etc.) if you don’t have any specific design skills.
• Hire a designer — This will put you over the $100 mark, but it would be worth it to you to have someone do the design for your company. Freelancers can sometimes be inexpensive. However, allow them to guide you through the process using your parameters — they’re doing the design and often understand the process better than you.

I’m not suggesting that the above bare bones scenario is ideal but, with some extra effort on your part, you’ll be able to create a presence that, at minimum, won’t hurt you. Nothing can replace hiring a talented designer at market rates to lead your identity development and printing, but these tips and tricks can get you through the launch of your company in the short term.

Green M&M

During the Spanish Civil War, Forrest Mars, Sr. saw some soldiers eating little chocolate pellets surrounded by a sugar shell, preventing the little pieces of chocolate from melting. He perfected the process, patented it and, along with Bruce Murrie, began production in 1941 exclusively for the military. The candy hooked thousands of GIs and the company began selling to the general public after the World War II ended, establishing M&M’s (Mars & Murrie) as one of the best-selling chocolates in history.

In nearly 70 years, the product has grown from a treat for soldiers to one of the most extended products in the world, with multiple fillings, flavors, customization options, colors and sizes that are sold in stores ranging from gas station stop-and-gos to the massive M&M’s Store on the Las Vegas strip.

What can entrepreneurs learn from Mars and Murrie? The customer’s vision (and money) drives product direction, not the entrepreneur. If Mars had stuck with his original product vision, the product would be relegated the memories of those who fought in World War II. There never would have been the addition of peanuts in 1954, peanut butter in 1990, the blue M&M in 1994 or a wall of “My Color” M&M’s anywhere. Certainly, there never would have been a customer-driven rumor that green M&M’s are an aphrodisiac, which has led to product extensions itself (bags of green M&M’s sold on Valentine’s Day, the sultry female M&M character featured in much of the company’s advertising). While there’s market research behind the moves that M&M’s makes, customer demand drives the vision of what the next M&M innovation will be.

One of the greatest challenges that inventors face is internal. Many inventors, who have invested countless hours and dollars perfecting their product, become so closely aligned to their own innovation vision that they lose sight of the customer. They restrict the vision of the market that they’re creating, which turns off potential customers, investors, champions and referrals. This eventually leads to game-changing technologies dying on the vine because the inventor thinks they’re smarter than the market.

Inventors and entrepreneurs must realize that they lose control of their product the minute they develop it. As soon it goes from concept to execution, the customer dictates whether or not the product is viable and what improvements should be made. Customers are smart. Follow their lead. And always remember that it was the customer, not the inventor, that created the green M&M.

Six Sigma is an incredibly rigorous process focused on statistical measurement in order to make improvements in the delivery of a product or service. I was originally drawn to it as a way to solve some of the process problems I had faced in my own area, expecting that it could be used to address nearly any challenge.

What I learned is that, as powerful a tool as Six Sigma can be, it is also easily manipulated to measure the wrong things to solve the wrong problems. There were countless examples of companies applying Six Sigma to problems customers didn’t care about, which, in the end, wasted gobs of time and money. The point that our instructor hammered home was, “define what is a defect based upon what is important to customers.” This, frustratingly, is often not something easily quantified. Why? For two reasons: sometimes the customer isn’t very forthcoming about what they want; and sometimes the customer just doesn’t know until they see it.

For these very qualitative challenges, enter Design Thinking, defined as a process for practical, creative resolution of problems or issues that looks for an improved future result. The goal (improvement) is the same, but attacks the challenge from a very different perspective. I see Design Thinking as the methodology that creates the “aha!” moment that converts the prospect into a customer.

My favorite quote from the article:

To survive, many businesses will have to figure out how to incorporate both approaches. Design thinking offers tools for exploring new markets and opportunities; Six Sigma skills can be applied to improve existing products. Companies that adhere strictly to one or the other risk failure. “The practices that make for success at one time can trap firms and contribute to their downfall at a later time,” says Bob Cole, a quality expert and professor emeritus at the Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley.

What if you’re a new company? What if you’re developing a new product in a start-up?

I would challenge that most new-product-oriented entrepreneurs see the world from the Design Thinking perspective, developing their innovation based upon a Design Thinking insight (“How can I improve upon this product/process?”, “Can I do something that works for a different consumer preference?”). Many of these entrepreneurs are heavily invested in their own vision of the product, seeing it more as a Picasso painting than something that will be competitive in a market depending on what the consumer (not the inventor) chooses to believe is important.

However, successful new product start-ups focus equally on the types of issues that Six Sigma raises (“What are the potential defects in this product?”, “What will the design be such that manufacturing errors are nearly non-existent?”). The discipline of Six Sigma methodology helps to take the qualitative vision of the product and turn it into something that can sit on a store shelf.

In any product development project, make sure to equally entertain the Picasso side and the engineer side of the brain. Talk to people about their own preferences to get a better understanding of what the market might consider buying. Ask yourself questions and develop a framework that assesses exactly why the product can fail (both mechanically and in the marketplace). Without the intense scrutiny from both the Six Sigma and Design Thinking lenses, a lot of time, money and energy might be invested in a product destined to fail.