The concept of “versions” of the product

By Lindberg Revoredo

Marketing Consultabt and Advertising Man
Writer of HSM Management Brazil
lindbergrevoredo@yahoo.com.br

“If they knew and understood and practiced continuously prospecting for extracting the desired scale value consumidr and its resulting concept of “versions” of the product, Kodak could not have burned the movie and the American railroads would not have missed the train”

Topics of the Article:

• It is not the product that is obsolete, but the “version”

 

• The version is not the product and the product is not your version, or one of its versions

• What Kodak had at hand (the movie) was one of only several versions that any product can have over time

• In possession of the technology, 3M sought to fit their product into the desired range of consumer products for various

• Thinking that is the product version is the same as a so-called product marketing

• Irony of ironies: Kodak invented the digital camera

• The only function of business is to sell the product, not the product technology

• Not knowing the concept of product releases the American railroads lost the tram

• Aim the scale of value and continually think in the next release, guarantee victory in the competition

• Computer programmers are forced to practice the concept of product releases

• No point in practicing the concept of product versions, without exploring the desired value scale of the consumer

• Same stone with which David defeated the giant Goliath, toppled the mighty Swiss watch industry

• The allure of technology has ousted paralyzing many businesses

• The quartz watch: confirmation of the big misconception is that the concept of “innovation”

• Knowledge of scale arising from its desired value and concept versions of the product, creates competitive advantages winners

• Amazingly, the industry lashes for coaches may be over by ignorance of this concept

• The Problem of Kodak was not “lack of adaptability” or “inability to morph” as they say the magazines, but ignorance of the science of marketing even

• Unfamiliarity with the concept and excellence of photographic film version of which lasted 100 years, helped create the illusion that he was not just another “version”, but the product is “final” (or rather its “final version, if is that one day we will get it)

• Another case of ignorance of the concept of “versions” and as a revolutionary technology can make an infinitely better version of the (same) product but in a radically different

• The first word processor was created in 1983 and until 1996 Olivetti has not realized that this was a new version of its product ultrarevolucionária

• Meet continually scale items of value you want the consumer to your product, is the real “business model” of any company

Not the product that is obsolete, but the “version”

In this time of competition at a frenetic pace that we see today, the companies take turns, each in search of new competitive advantages in order to overcome the competition, each trying to satisfy one item highest, more than one item from the scale of the desired value for your consumer product (s) and thus causing the obsolescence of the competitor’s product, each company to turn, and increasingly in less time. I told obsolescence of competitor’s product? No, the obsolescence is not the product but the “version” of the product manufactured by the competitor.

Without understanding that the product is not the version that the product is one that is described in the range of desired value for each consumer product and not the versions that are created each time you try to satisfy an increasing number of scale items desired value of the consumer for each product, we will never have a true science of marketing, proven facts, effective.

The version is not the product and the product is not your version, or one of its versions

Knowledge and understanding of this concept would have guaranteed the Kodak maintaining its leadership position in the market for photographs and would have rid of this unfortunate setback that nearly decimated the company, as have the journals.

According to Exame magazine(Brazil), Kodak had recently imploded in his headquarters in the United States, no fewer than 100 buildings that now are useless.

If she had, firstly, knowledge of the true name of your product, given by the buyer, which is the only one who knows the real name of all products, the consumer, which is “capturing and printing images at higher resolution possible, in view of the result of capturing and fastest way possible, at the lowest possible price, “which in the end, is the synthesis of all items of the scale of consumer value for the product photography.

What Kodak had at hand (the protographic movie) was just one of several versions that any product can have over time

If I knew that the product is not what she has on hand to sell and its technology, but only one of several versions that have the product over time, trying to satisfy a number of items in the scale of the desired value of the consumer would always savvy, prospecting and targeting diuturnamente range of consumer and meet every day looking for items of higher value still, and not with the eyes hypnotized, fixed to the product version that she has on hand and the technology employed in it, and remained relentlessly looking (before the competitor did), means, methods, ways (technologies) through which could meet in an objective way, every day, an item of value ever higher on the scale of consumer value for their product in order come meet full-scale (so far not achieved such a feat for any product), and always in possession of knowledge of the scale prospecting and consumers to learn more and more items, always alert, readiness, given the new item of value and discovered a method, a new technology that might arise in the vicinity or within your own company to translate the new version of the product that meets these new items discovered desired value (or not yet.

In possession of the technology, 3M sought fit your product in the range of desired value to various consumer products

It is possible, with a version of a product created by a new technology or application as yet unknown function, set, slip it on items discovered the scale of consumer value of one or several products, such as 3M made with nylon, for example : searching, embedded in its discovery items high on the scale of consumer value for different products)

Think that is the product version is the same as a so-called product marketing

And thus bypassing completely the attention of the version (the so-called marketing to the product) at hand and escaping this curse applicant to think that one version of the product at hand, it is the complete product.

But, irony of ironies, and that makes this sad case of the Kodak is a classic example of this failure to point out is that she herself was the inventor of the machine digital photograph.It for not understanding the scale of the desired value of the consumer and the resulting concept versions of the product (each release meets one or more items of the scale of the desired value, not the entire range, so it’s not the full product, so you can not stop the search for new versions, to the satisfaction of most desired items before the competitor).

Irony of ironies: Kodak invented the digital camera

Understanding the scale and thus the product versions that meet the scale value items can escape the curse of paralyzing fascination which holds the technology used in the version, so effective, but can only attend a few items on the scale of desired value consumer for the product.

Let us repeat: The company does not sell technology products to consumers (unless your business is selling technology) and the consumer does not buy the technology embedded in the product version. But the value you want it materializes.

The purchaser does not matter a little ingenuity, the process that led to the satisfaction of its desired value.
But from what we see, the seller, the manufacturer always has the tendency to deify technology and stuck to it and therefore the version of the product produced by it, while the competitor goes ahead with a new version.

The only function of business is to sell the product, not the technology of the product. Unless your business is selling technology

Forgetting the obvious the obvious, that the technology used in the product version, high or low, has at the end of secondary importance in the marketing, sale of products is the only function of any company, as Peter Drucker (except when the technology is going to satisfy a desired item of high value consumer that is the desire for “status” to view before your group, not even using all the resources created by it) ..

These technologies that fascinate (and there are many technologies that really fascinating but not used to sell anything, in the sense that the consumer only cares about even with the law of least effort, with their desired satisfaction, not satisfied with that ultra complex technology that only thinking about it causes mental fatigue) which allows one machine to manufacture beautiful, complex operating impressive, but most times they get confused and the manufacturer does not recognize it as a new version of its own product that may arise, as we shall see .

They create amazing products, but also create products that are good for nothing, that nobody needs them, that anyone interested in purchasing. As is often the way to make the technology is different, the manufacturer is confused when it is presented a new version of the product that meets the most valuable items of the scale, but with a radically different way of doing.

Therefore, if the company does not waste time, effort and money, the pursuit of technology has to be a second movement, after learning through exploration, the items of the desired range of consumer value for the product.

Not knowing the concept of product releases the American railroads lost the tram

 

An early classic examples of ignorance of the scale of consumer value and hence the real name of product (consumer only knows) that automatically sends us to the concept of product versions, the American railroads were at the beginning of the century. If they knew of the existence of the concept of the scale of consumer value, and prospects to meet her, they would realize that did not sell trains, but transport, or, better yet, the buyer does not buy the trains, but transport by any means (any vehicle ).

 

 

They knew what they were selling but not what consumers buy, and this ox is the question. The producer, the manufacturer know that sells the company does not prosper, but knowing what the consumer buys. Knowing the concept, by simple deduction would conclude that its trains, that means, that vehicle used to transport people, was just one of the “versions” of the product transport which served as only a few items of low value range of the desired consumer for the product.

Watch the scale of value and continually think in the next release, guarantee victory in the competition

And if they had targeted continuously fixedly at the scale of value for product transport and not the “version” before them, they would see that right now were already coming from all sides, several new versions of this product (transport) that met items of value much higher scale value of the consumer, such as automobile, airplane, etc.., and it would be against preventing natural obsolescence of the product version you had, starting to invest, before she arrived in these new versions by hands of the competition which serve over scale items of value, rather than existing or new competitors did.

Computer programmers are forced to practice the concept of product releases

Is there a product that by its very nature, prevent their producers confusion, who does not understand the concept of product versions, yet often incurring the mistake of creating a new “version” that does not comply with new items to its range of value consumer, through ignorance of how the consumer buys in its range of desired value for all products, which are
computer programs.

Because the technology employed is basically the same, so that the business remains profitable they are required to create a new product version that meets the desired value items ever higher, not only to have a competitive advantage against any competitor that comes up, but mainly for the survival of the business.

It is useless to practice the concept of product versions, without exploring the scale of the desired consumer

As computer programs are products that do not break, do not throw in the trash, there is no danger of theft or replacement of parts that deteriorate, and are not as tangible products, physical (cars, appliances, etc..) Requiring a buyback after a time of use by wear or aging of parts requiring a replacement of the product, to purchase a new appliance to replace the old thrown in the trash without necessarily having been created a new version, so that sales do not cease, and the company not bankrupt, they are required to continuously create new versions of the program that meet the most items on the scale of the desired value of the consumer for this product, so they can sell again to the same buyer (To resolve this crucial issue, many companies Computer does not sell ownership of the final version of the program with a single payment, but “rent” versions).

The concept version is encrusted, implicit in the process of marketing this product in your marketing, and therefore impossible to its manufacturer does not know and do not employ the concept of versions.

Same stone with which David defeated the giant Goliath, toppled the mighty Swiss watch industry

Another example happened to the Swiss watch industry which was destroyed by a version of this product created with a technology that I call “desinovação” and this case makes it clear once again that the big mistake is the use of the practice of the concept of innovation “(the random creation of new high technology products as a resource for the company to achieve competitive advantage over the competition). A fragment of a simple gravel destroyed at once the mighty Swiss watch industry (which is like the stone David used to bring down the giant Goliath).

A version of the product clock, using a simplified technology dropped another version with a technology far more complex when one thinks that the common is the opposite to happen. A fragment of common pebble, replaced with an infinitely greater degree of efficiency, a whole complex technology.

The quartz watch: confirmation of the big misconception is that the concept of “innovation”

The new version of the product clock was so simple and so different in appearance and totally negating the older technology so sophisticated that when it was presented to representatives of the Swiss watch industry they said “no rope, no mechanism, no rubies then do not watch it. “

The curse of the allure of high technology has helped prevent him from seeing the truth: that the consumer does not buy technology but the result it creates, produces and if the result meets the desired value of items in its range of value for the product. He does not appreciate this or that technology. To him little or nothing is importing the technology employed.

The allure of technology has ousted paralyzing many businesses

 

With a minimum of lucidity, without consumer surveys, would realize that what mattered was the great value of the desired product to the consumer watch the version made with quartz was in a degree never attained by the older technology ingenious: the accuracy, timeliness count, the marking of time, and that version was outdated with the emergence of new, less technology, but infinitely more effective.

 

 

The rest of the story everybody knows. Japanese industry of quartz watches decimated the Swiss watch industry. Definitive proof that the buyer only purchase its highest desired value, not technology.

Knowledge of scale resulting from its desired value and concept versions of the product, creates competitive advantages winners

The original idea behind the post-war Japanese industry of not doing anything new, but doing the same thing better, the end is a basic perception of the concept of product releases, which is linked and is due, subject, the concept of scale the desired value for all consumer products and for a given circumstance. There is no point making new versions that do not meet new items of this scale. It’s almost the same as practicing the infamous concept of “random innovation”: creating products to anyone interested in purchasing.

For hilarious enough, the owner of the industry to harness the coaches may have closed or changed business sector by the unfamiliarity of this concept

For more hilarious as it may seem, the industry also whips to train just unaware of the existence of scale desired value of the consumer and their resulting concept of “versions” of the product. As absurd as it sounds, the whip for coaches is a first version of the accelerator the car, like the horse is an earlier version of the engine, like it or not.
Continue or not in the business of “equipment for acceleration, or begin to manufacture the vehicle whole (since, after all, even making just one component, the whip, it wants to or not, is in the business of transport). or create a new business, it’s just an administrative decision, assessment of chances to compete in new business or not. One issue that has to do with the scale value of the seller, not the scale of the desired value of the buyer.

The problem of Kodak was not “lack of adaptability” or “inability to morph” as they say the magazines, but ignorance of the true science of marketing even

In conclusion, it is not “lack of adaptability” or “not able to morph” or “lack of capacity for recognition of obsolescence” speak as the business magazines referring to the Kodak. These three expressions are not principles of the science of marketing, do not give a diagnosis on what happened or suggest a solution to the problem.

What happened was the ignorance on the part of Kodak’s concept of “versions”, nothing more. Not having the awareness that she lacked the product, but only one version, which we agree, attended by many years the high consumer items for the product photo, but since nobody knows the last item of the scale value of any product (the version that comprises the complete product, the full scale), she was not aware that whenever you need to consider just how version, the latest version, and therefore consider that it will always be subject to obsolescence.

And early versions, previous versions were so far in the past (100 years), for example the daguerreotype, and the fact the movie version of celluloid have attended numerous items of value desired in previous versions, which contributed more descompreensão yet to complete the concept version of its inevitable obsolescence, helping to complete the illusion that they were in possession of the final version of the final product that would meet the first and last item of the scale of the desired consumer for product photography.

Unfamiliarity with the concept and the excellence of the movie version that lasted 100 years, helped establish the illusion that he was not just another “version”, but the product is “final” (or rather their “final” if it is that one day we will get it)

To illustrate, let’s remember some of the new items served by the new version (digital camera) on the previous (the film celluloid)? The cheapening of total costs, the size of the equipment (portability, a high value desired, see the great success of the Exilim), quality (resolution) of the photo (though the previous method was already very good. The immediacy of the viewing result. outyro Served by an equipment using the old technology, but with a high cost, duplication of photo paper at a very low cost printers for home inkjet or laser. Etc. You have to have a crystal ball to foresee all ? No one must know the true science of marketing, proven facts and not coming from ithinks. And of professionals with knowledge of true science, sensibility and a gift. All good professionals in any areas of human knowledge has these same characteristics.

Another case of ignorance of the concept of “versions” and as a revolutionary technology can make an infinitely better version of the (same) product but in a radically different

Another case shows how important it is to be always ready prospecting, extracting and diuturnamente targeting, monitoring the level of consumer value and seeking a way, a technology to create a new version that meets the most items of the scale, or observing some technology might arise in the vicinity and suddenly create a new version taking into account the many items of the desired scale value of the consumer, the previous version seems built into the stone age, it is the case with Olivetti typewriter and computer with your word processor.

While totally distracted by the unfamiliarity of the concept of “versions” were making the calls “incremental innovation”, small improvements (small “innovations” at random, not based on accurate information on the scale of value) in the old version using much the same how to make the same technology, a new technology was emerging ultrarevolucionária sneak and enabling it to create a version (consisting of the physical and software) that at once answered the items of unimaginable desired value than the previous version could ever do and a technology, a forrna to do the same thing in a way strikingly different and dramatically increasing the infinite possibilities of satisfying a multitude of items in the scale desired value of the consumer for this product.

The first word processor was created in 1983 and until 1996 Olivetti has not realized that this was a new version of its product ultrarevolucionária

The same way that technology can have a paralyzing effect on the technological simplicity of a new version, as in the case of quartz clock, high technology most often produces a version so revolutionary in form and performance, the manufacturer will never recognize that this is just a new version of their product if they do not know the concept of “versions”.

Was created in 1983 to IBM the first word processing program, Word 1. Olivetti continued fabricating their typewriters considered the design world’s most beautiful, and thinking that was the complete product in the hands not just one version.
Reports say that in 1996, 13 years after the first word processor, demonstrating a total disregard for the advent of word processor, a notorious fact that was happening before their eyes, she was still lost with the obsolescence of its full product version, (proving once again that his ignorance of the principles of the science of marketing, she called that her poor version of its “business model”.

Continuously satisfy the items in the scale desired value of the consumer for your product, is the real “business model” of any company

The real “business model” of any company is to meet continuously the items in the scale of consumer desired value by any means, before the competitor does, which assumes a sequence of versions, creating a mostly complete obsolescence another. This is a fundamental principle of the science of marketing), and for ignoring his real name is “equipment for writing as quickly as possible, with the highest possible clean (without dirtying your hands) with the smallest and most practical work of revision Text (review the text written without tearing paper and having to rewrite everything again), printing the text more quickly and clean as possible and viable for any technological method “and what she called a typewriter.

The great mistake of “innovation”

Lindberg Revoredo

Marketing Consultant and advertising man / Keynote speaker

Writer of HSM Management Brazil

 

 

Topics of the article:

• The “innovation” and its mistaken conception is the wrong medicine for the disease of the actual unbridled competition
• The “R” from R & D is always the random search of “news and innovative” and not “R”  search the desired value of the consumer
• The “innovation” with low, high or no technology is a second movement
• For many, Peter Drucker and Theodore Levitt are yet forgotten or unknown
• The problem of companies focused on “innovation” is that they do not know which “innovation” the consumer wants
• In fact the consumer does not want to “innovative” but objective solutions for their problems
• A great innovation “old”: The engine “flex”, bifuel
• A “reverse innovation” of great success: the personal calculator
• A “great old innovation” : The engine “flex”, bi fuel
• Was the wrong concept of “innovation” ingrained in human nature?
• Great “innovations” that nobody bought because they no needed them
• Amazingly the video-phone was not an item of the desired scale value for the consumer for  product telephone
• Only consumers know the perfect product, the “innovation” perfect
• The “intuition” the most successful Casio: Exilim on
• See below in simplified form, the scale of the consumer desired value for all products
• Only Michael Dell of Dell Computers, is aware of the mistaken conception which is the “innovation” and its concept?

 

The “innovation” and its mistaken conception is the wrong medicine for the disease of the actual unbridled competition

The “innovation” and its misconception has been propagated as a panacea for business success, as the only remedy for their survival in these times of unbridled competition. What everyone is thinking by what you hear and read is that the company that more “invent” new things, new products, will be ahead of the competition.

Some suggest innovations “radicals”, referring to the need for inventions radically different products, to win the competition. All the while everyone is talking about the only salvation of the company is inventing products “radically new”. However, this medicine for at least a formula error.

The “R” from R & D is always the random search of “news and innovative” and not “R”  search the desired value of the consumer

Others say that it’s necessary to increase the speed and intensity of production department R & D, but the “P” is always to search for new inventions “radical”, random, and not the “P” of research (or to prospect using various techniques) to meet the scale of the desired value for consumers, who reveals the perfect way how to make the product more salable. They do not know exactly why the costs in R & D grow and profits decline.

The “innovation” with low, high or no technology is a second movement

They do not understand that R & D with “R”  products research, the invention of products, accompanied by her “D” for development, is a second movement, after learning that the product, which “innovation” to be created and its perfect recipe as it is revealed by those who need it, for those who will use it, taken from their range of desired value for all products.

At this point, yes, the thinking heads of the inventors, the staff of the department of R & D has a safe direction where to direct their creative verve, inventiveness, with absolute certainty of that go to a technical solution marketable.

What really matters is not the ingenuity of the invention, the high technology employed, but the relevance of its application, to give the perfect solution desired by the buyer.

For many, Peter Drucker and Theodore Levitt are yet forgotten or unknown

To the consumer does not matter to know the product technology. What he wants is to satisfy your need the more perfect way according to its value judgment.

What seems clear is that many have forgotten or have they not known the most basic principles of the science of marketing, taught by some real scientists and teachers of this subject, as Peter Drucker and Theodore Levitt, that only the consumer knows  my company and my products, the model that makes it more profitable, more agile and more effective. Understanding that the consumer has to be the permanent consultant on all things the company, because only he knows the perfect model for all companies and all products.

Because the “innovation” is made to  him  to buy, and  the  consumer only buys what he wants. Only buy the product that perfectly suits their needs, their desires. Nobody can force someone to buy what do not want.

The problem of companies focused on “innovation” is that they do not know which “innovation” the consumer wants

What good is all my creativity to innovation, if I do not know what the consumer wants me invent? If I do not know exactly the “innovation” that consumers want?

What companies need to do is find every way possible (and then yes, she must have knowledge, creativity and feeling) to “extract” (this is the precise word) the consumer this perfect model of how it should be done your product. And this is the hardest part of the whole story.

In fact the consumer does not want to “innovative” but objective solutions for their problems

Consumers do not want that “innovation” or “innovations”. What he wants are things that meet the desires that he most values, whether new or old. People buy according to your desired value, not by desire for mere novelties.

Examples corroborating what we say. Theories which are not proven in practice, by the facts, are not science. Scientific principles when applied, always work and always bring the same results. And  serve us theories which  are not science?

A “great old innovation” : The engine “flex”, bifuel

Example that “innovation” are not only new ideas: The Ford Model “T” of 1908 was “flex” flex-fuel. It worked with alcohol and gasoline. The engine “flex” today (made with new technology, but use to the consumer equal) to the consumer is a “new innovation” that comes to meet your desired value which is to choose between two fuels and run away from the high price gasoline anytime.

A “reverse innovation” of great success: the personal calculator

Another example of  ”reverse innovation” great success:  a six-digit calculator from Casio. The Japanese giant has emerged in the late 50th and 60th was the market leader in electronic calculators. In 1970 she found herself pressed for more than 40 competitors and instead of making an “innovation” new “or an improvement in their calculators they have 8 digits, add a model with at least 2 digits, no decimal places, fewer features and price of $ 100, the Casio Mini (I had one as a kid). Before the Casio Mini price of a calculator reached thousands of dollars.

Was the wrong concept of “innovation” ingrained in human nature?

Business magazines mention what neither the sellers believed in the product. Apparently at  this time there was already this misguided mentality of this “innovation” and its concept – the customer only buys new invention and with the latest technology. Also there, no one knew the principle terse of marketing that teaches the reason why people buy: the perception of value.

In just one year were sold two million units. The Casio Mini was the first personal calculator. According to the magazine survey, Casio’s strategy has always been based on “creativity and intuition of its director (no survey or other method of study of scale value of the consumer).

Always I call this thing “innovation” looking for value. Or “Russian roulette” business. You choose.

We can repeat? People do not buy innovation, but the desired value, whose value is subject to their purchasing power, the circumstances, the manner of using the product, etc.. This “desinovação” random created by its director, forced by competitive pressures, “by chance”, “by lucky” as talk the people who believe in luck or chance, “hit” in the full on the value item desired  from scale many people for the calculator product: low price, portability and suitability for use.

Great “innovations” that nobody bought because they no needed them

See these examples of great “innovations” that nobody wanted. That served no purpose. But they were great innovations, great inventions ! But it were not a desired value for people and so nobody bought. And innovation that consumers do not want, do not sell.

The video phone. Wonderful invention. The phone with video, with a small screen on which you are seen and see the person you’re talking about the other side of the line. At first glance, anyone would say at the seller position, it would be a successful product. But the seller does not know which product of success, the product it sells. Only the buyer knows.

Amazingly, the video-phone was not an item of the desired consumer scale value for the  product telephone

In salesman position people have a way of thinking. In the position of buyer, has an entirely different one. It is a perfect case of split personality. Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde.

Was invented more than 40 years and so far no one wanted to have a videophone. Put yourself now in the position of video-phone user’s,  and you will understand, easy, because it was a big failure.

First, because all people, of Oiapoque to Siberia, are always insecure about her appearance. People always feel less beautiful, in images from any media. The vast majority of people have an obsession for privacy. The residential videophone call as the common telephone, it’s also at inappropriate times, when people are in your relax, without makeup, in shorts and no shirt. And the obsession growing today for  security? Strangers calling your house by mistake or by malicious intent and seeing you on the small screen?

Need I say more? A wonderful “innovation”,  but it was not an item of the scale, of the “list” of consumer desired value to the  product telephone.

Only consumers know the perfect product, the “innovation” perfect

People want innovations? No. They want that every day is happy one more item (if not all at once) to the desired value of its range of desired value for all products (in fact, when consumers say products, they mean solutions for your valuables desired), he has stored in it, and which, neither himself has full consciousness

They want another “innovation” unwanted? Miniature TVs from Casio. The famous “seems more is not.” At first glance it would be a success. But nobody wanted to have a 5-inch TV. She almost does not exist in the market today because it simply was not an item of  desired value of people for  television product. Result of another outbreak of  ”intuition.”

The “intuition” the most successful Casio: Exilim on

The same Kashio, who had the “intuition” of “reverse innovation” from major success of the first personal calculator, also had the intuition of another “innovation” of big sales because “fit” perfectly (again by “luck”) in items of great value that you want the consumer when the company was on the verge of closing their doors by the fault of “intuitions” of other products that consumers did not buy: the Exilim digital camera: resolution despite its small, was a desired value as high, stored in people’s hearts ( where it is hidden the scale of the desired value in people?) for  photography product:   can carry the machine to everywhere, a party for example, in the most discreet way (in the pocket in the exchange) and portable – leaving your hands completely free.

The problem is that when the “intuition” of Kashio or some other brother (there are four directors, founders of Casio) fails, as happened to Cassiopeia, the Casio’s first minicomputer, the damage is great.

I want to set an example now of a more “innovation”, however more than perfectly “fitted” on the value scale of the consumer. An example of a product that is an item of value that is at the highest point for scale value of the consumer to the product phone: the mobile

But this will be the  final item  of list for this product whose real name (given by whom has his perfect model in its range of value, the consumer) is communication  person to person, the most private possible and that the manufacturer calls the telephone? We know the final item on the list? No, but we know where the “complete” list is. We just have to learn more and more “exploring” , (and this is the hardest part, because if neither the owner, the consumer, streamlines, know all your items) to get to know them all. This condition is imperative for the survival of businesses.

View below in simplified form, the scale of the consumer desired value for all  products

To better understand, see the scale of the desired value for any consumer product by a small simplified graphic of your main items. Take for example the scale of value to the product music. In the numbered list below is listed the desired value and soon after, the corresponding solution (products) materialized:

1. simply hearing the music – the theater presentations (to few people)

2. The sound for listening at home at any time – the sound recorded in gramophones (sound sucks)

3. the device to listen and learn new songs at low cost – radio

4. The sound for portable listening on the go – portable radio

5. The favorite music to listen everywhere – Walkman

6. The high sound quality – the record player and stereo hi-fi

7. The music portable high quality – the discman

8. Live music to see at home – TV

9. Music chosen in live performance the singer stopped at home – the video cassette

10. Previous item with image and sound quality – the dvd

11. A device for listening to music, watch videos or anything else and that can store hundreds of high-quality sound, transportable in his shirt pocket – the iPod, etc..

Armed with the list of items of this scale is much easier for the thinking heads of the department of R & D to create an “innovation” with the market right buyer.

Does only the Michael Dell of Dell Computers, is aware of the misconception that this is the “innovation” and its concept?

The interview with Thomas A. Stewart, editor of the Harvard Business Review and Louise Obrien, consultant editor of this magazine, reveals the lucidity and awareness of the principles of true science marketing of the president and founder of Dell Computers, Michael Dell. In this interview, he and his CEO Kevin Rollins teach that the excellence of your company is to know and monitor all the time the scale of the desired value of your buyer, not merely invent “innovations” pyrotechnics. Below,  I transcribe a few sentences and then I make comments to each:

MD – “Dell has changed what was the strategic factor in our industry (computers), which was the spending on R & D for the production of standard technology at the lowest cost. In the history of mankind no company that has provided low-cost, had losses. “

An example to understand one of the aspects that he refers to this statemen: the vast majority of people will never need a computer that has a processor speed greater than 2 and a half megahertz, for example. This configuration and its low cost, makes this computer a desired high value for a huge number of people, increasing revenues and market share of the company. One wants to “innovation” is becoming the leading company? This “desinovação” of Michael Dell is the real “innovation.” The “innovation” that the customer wants. Hence the choice of the Dell standard technology at low cost.

MD – “The high spending on R & D to create unique products leads to a niche strategy, not a broad-based strategy. Still, many companies continue to say that the winner is the one that spends more on R & D “

When he speaks of “creating unique products,” read “innovations” ( “intuitive” or based on the scale of consumer value). Even though the niche strategy, a valid option for any company to meet the desired value, he explains that this position leads to more jobs, more investment in R & D and perhaps less profit for those who are aiming to be market leader. Here it also refers to the mistake of thinking that the higher the technology of “innovation” over the company grows.

MD – “Our competitors are not going to beat the Dell while spending a fortune on R & D  and try to be companies  turned to invent “. These two goals are mutually exclusive “

Here he put “the nail on the head.” When he says “companies turned to invent” refers to the notorious practice of “innovation,” the invention of new products, unbridled,who  knows who goes to buy. Then, on the mutually exclusive goals, he refers to two choices that every company has before: either fight to learn, research and monitoring to meet the desired range of consumer, that is, sell in the way the consumer want to buy, like Dell , or goes crazy with the production of “innovations” high-tech, with its huge expenditure on R & D in the mistaken belief that the consumer only want  ”new technologies”, whatever they may be. He continues:

MD – “We partners when it makes sense, rather than trying to reinvent things ever invented”

If the “reinvention” is  not for add value to the product, make the same product in a way that better serves the consumer (an “incremental innovation”, as they call those who support the “innovation” and its concept) an “improvement in product “desired by the consumer, but only by the pride of a proprietary technology, it is preferable to make partnerships. That is, if the issue is to have a rich company and market leader like Dell, you need to save the expense of vanity. The purpose of any business is profitability, by any lawful means.

MD – “Sony is investing 1 billion dollars and get back only 200 million in profit. Sony is inventing others. It invests in things that can be exciting, but they are not valued by the customer. Thus, can not generate good returns.The real test of innovation is if the client is willing to pay for it “

These last words of Michael Dell need comments?