News: What Do US Consumers See As Their Core Drivers of Satisfaction With Companies?

http://www.marketingcharts.com/traditional/what-do-us-consumers-see-as-their-core-drivers-of-satisfaction-with-companies-66657/?utm_campaign=newsletter&utm_source=mc&utm_medium=headline

The dark side of the digital age

Ghana: Digital Dumping Ground (documentary, 2009)
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/ghana804/video/video_index.html

 

Buy or repair? Recycle or donate? What are the greener options? Follow the FAQs and expert links for some answers.

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/ghana804/resources/faq.html

"Good Enough" Products Often Die a Quick Death

The Wired article "The Good Enough Revolution: When Cheap and Simple is Just Fine" focuses a good part of its argument on the Flip, a bare bones video camera with easy sharing capabilities. It came out around 2007, was purchased by Cisco in 2009 and by 2011 it was dead. Surpassed by the easy and simple video sharing capabilities of smart phones like the iPhone, Cisco discontinued the product. Was the product still useful? Sure. But people increasingly had the same ability to take the same low-quality video with superior products they already had in their pockets.

The Wired article also points to netbooks as an example of a good enough product that was enormously successful. The article says, "On paper, netbooks might seem like crappy toys. They have almost no storage, processing power, or graphics capability. What they do have, though, is accessibility: Cheap, small, and light, they let you connect to the Internet from almost anywhere. Netbook shipments were up sevenfold in the first quarter of 2009." But where are netbooks now? Gone. As this Bloomberg article from 2013 puts it, "The Netbook is Dead. The iPad Killed It." Tablets with their high graphics capabilities, better storage, decent processing power AND internet accessibility gained popularity, became less expensive and thoroughly dismantled the netbook's place in the market. The netbook's only redeeming factor was it's ability to go online and nowadays all most all technology can access the internet. 

The article also mentions Hulu as an example. While Hulu is still up and running, its business model has changed enormously. In 2012 its viewership dropped 58 percent and since then Hulu dropped free viewing but it still has ads. Is this good enough? Probably not because consumers can pay around the same price per month for Netflix and receive no ads. Additionally many networks offer free day-after viewing on their own websites now. 

"Good enough" products, especially good enough products that are technology based, are placeholders - temporary fixes. These products' business models start to fail when quality products emerge that incorporate the same features (plus better features) and they die completely when quality products become comparable in price. 

There is nothing wrong with being "good enough," but good enough is not enough to build a sustainable business on. As a person I value simplicity, but as a consumer I am wary of products that claim simplicity but are really just of low quality. Usually this means you are just not getting enough bang for your buck.  

Simplicity is the New Quality

In the article on Wired.com titled "The Good Enough Revolution: When Cheap and Simple Is Just Fine" Robert Capps essentially states that while technology is getting better people settle for lesser version of it because they function as needed in a faster moving world. His analysis of how technology has changed the camera and music industries, among other, is truly insightful into how consumers are acting in a more technologically developed society.

I'm am not an avid photographer, but as a Journalism major I've had experience handling a wide range of camera, including SLR and DSLR. I understand the camera markets shift through my own experience with these cameras as opposed to a simple point and shoot camera. Point and shoot cameras take options away from the user. The user is generally confined to the normal manufactured settings that allows them to take the what the user believes is the best picture possible. While a SLR or DSLR camera may be able to take a better picture, an inexperienced and indifferent user will not take full advantage of the it's settings thus making it as useful as the simple point and shoot. An avid photographer may complain about the quality, but the normal consumer does not analyze a photo as passionately. Besides, if the consumer is happy about the photo, the photo holds a high quality in the eyes of the consumer even it's photographic value is low. 

Cheap and Simple has become the new wave of satisfaction because it grants consumers the quality they're most looking for: instant gratification in a simple, swift manner. According a 2008 article on Engadget.com 95 percent of returned gadgets work and an executive the consulting firm Accenture blamed it on the complexity of gadgets. This coupled with the general practice of not reading the instruction manner creates a consumer base that is not looking for quality, but rather quick usability that leads to quick satisfaction. 

Downloading a mp3 file to your phone is much faster than driving to the store to buy a vinyl album (if the record company even prints one). Quality is now defined by ease and quickness of use. 

Is ramen noodles good enough?

Robert Capp's article ""The Good Enough Revolution: When Cheap and Simple is Just Fine" is very interesting because it sheds light on the market of inferior goods. Technical goods that are not better than their competitors but are widely popular if mass consumers can afford it and need it. The good must also be able to fulfill the intended purpose of the finer good, even if it has lower quality. Every technology based consumer good that is based on the "cheap and simple" platform will inevitably end production or become a superior good because technology will continue to improve. Thus, the demands from customers will continue to change.

For example, in the article Capp explains the process Jonathan Kaplan went through in order to fail in the camera market and than have temporary success in the video market. The Flip camera is the prime example of a "good enough" product. It was able to fulfill the intended purpose of the finer good but with less quality. It had temporary success as in inferior good but was not able to keep adapting to the markets needs as technology became better. Moore's law applies must also apply to inferior goods. As the video market became better, Flip released better versions of its camera. However, an inferior good must not only improve its product but continue to innovate itself. Flip's motto was "We will always prioritize accessibility over features." But this motto led to their failure because as video became integrated into other products Flip lost its share of the market to smartphones. It could not adapt and become more accessible than smartphones and the camera did not have better features. Most can agree that smartphone cameras are inferior to DSLRs and also more convenient than a Flip cameras. Flip became the inferior good to the new inferior good. The ramen noodle to the Big Mac.

Some inferior products don't fail. They become superior products within their market. Skype is a great example of this.  Capp explains that originally the platform lagged and dropped calls. Clearly, it was the inferior good to international calls. It only accounted for 38 million users when the article was written. Over time the service drastically improved its quality and added numerous features for their customers. It innovated as time went on and became a superior good. Today Skype has over millions of users and is a leader in many telecommunication markets.

I overall agree with Cabb. There will always be a market for cheap and simple consumer goods. However, in order for a product to became a sustainable company their overall selling point/features must improve along side with the market. In fact, if they innovate ahead of their competitors the inferior good can become the superior good. Ramen noodles can become pad thai. All it takes is a cheap price, convenience, and some innovation.

Good enough is getting better

I found Robert Capp's article very interesting, particularly due to the date the article was published. In 2009, the iPhone 3G was the newest model and FaceTime wasn't a thing. Now, seven years later, it's interesting to note how some of his points still remain yet technology advancements has also allowed for speed and convenience to upgrade the quality of the things we use every day. For example, Capps notes that net-based phone calls like Skype can be lag and have poor sound quality, but users don't let the lack in quality deter them from using the internet to make international calls. He reports that 8% of international calls are made through Skype with 38 million users. Today, Skype has over 300 million users and is used 3 billion minutes per day. Furthermore, Skype was bought out by Microsoft which amped up their software, enabling the calls to be smoother and mobile friendly.

I agree with Capps that consumers sacrifice quality for cheapness and convenience.  We don't buy digital cameras anymore because we have our phones. We don't buy music records because we can buy a song for $0.99 or download it for free off the internet. Cheap and fast tools are everywhere and available at our fingertips. We can read the news, for free, in 140 characters instead of buying a full newspaper. Capps mentions how all of this is "good enough" for the consumer, however I believe that companies and brands have advanced in making this trend of cheap and convenient knowledge, that what was once good enough, is now better. Companies have been able to see what consumers want and have altered their ways of getting it to us with higher quality - because good enough wouldn't last forever.  

It's Good Enough For Me

I am a big proponent of "good enough" technologies. I had a flip camera when they first came out, and I used Facetime/Skype all summer while I was studying abroad. Since I was in England all summer bought an English SIM card for my phone. I paid about $30-$40 for unlimited data in the UK and most of Europe. The network I used didn't have the best coverage, but it was cheap and accessible everywhere I traveled. It was as the article says "good enough." I could always Facetime or Skype home and I never had to worry about how many texts I was using as long as they were iMessages. Or I could just use Facebook to message people. If I got lost I could pull up a map - it might have been slower than others but at least I had it.
To me this article seems to have a lot to do with attribution theory that we talked about in the beginning of the semester. Quality is not the only thing people are looking for anymore. Of course professionals will always pay for the top of the line (you aren't going to see a videographer walking around with a Flip cam). But I don't think the good enough mentality is a bad thing. Especially if the price reflects that. No one wants to pay lots of money for something that is low quality, but we are talking about cheap and cheerful here. People who want to be the first to adopt are going to pay the higher price - but money is a hugely limited factor there. These good enough technologies will improve over time thanks to Moore's law, but the mass market doesn't need the best of the best right away. This article talks about how Apple actually lost market share in China to cheap and cheerful phones.
To be fair though, mobile technologies like iPhones are game changers in this area. You can now shoot (and edit) 4K on your phone, your point and shoot camera is in your back pocket. You can access Google drive from your phone, make skype calls from your phone, watch Netflix or Hulu, listen to music, even read books from your phone. Everything is now on mobile. And it's the same principle. No the screen might not be the biggest or the best to watch movies on but I always have my phone and 90% of the time I have a strong enough internet connection to watch something if I want to. Same thing for shooting video. I might not have the funds to buy myself a nice video camera, but I can still make a video about my trip to where ever that looks pretty darn good. It lowers those barriers to entry. So while the phone itself might not be cheap, it gives access to lots of these good enough technologies.

Crap

 In Robert Capps’ article, The Good Enough Revolution: When Cheap and Simple Is Just Fine, Capps’ article can be summed by his use of the word “crapification.”

Based on Capps’ use of the word I created my own definition:

Crap•i•fi•ca•tion

verb

The process of producing “lower-quality” goods and services in order to meet high levels of convenience for the consumer.

The consequence of such a process is known as what Capps calls “the mp3 effect.” Basically, we as consumers have a different idea of what “high-quality” means to us. The question isn’t which product is better, but which product is easier? This is probably best exemplified by my love for instant chocolate cake mixes.

If you were to find the best chocolate cake recipe on Pinterest, use fresh ingredients from your own Austin urban farm, make it from scratch and asked me whether I liked your cake or a Great Value instant chocolate cake– I’d crush your little DIY heart.

Now it’s not that I have bad taste (maybe I do) or that your cake wasn’t delicious. I just love instant cake mix for two reasons:

           

1)    It’s so easy to make that even my mom can make it and not to be rude (I love you mom), but my mom isn’t exactly a whiz in the kitchen. So when she did make my favorite sweet treat it was always quick and delicious.

2)    It’s cheap as hell. This came in super clutch when begging my mom for it at the grocery store. We didn’t grow up poor by any means, but we were definitely working to make ends meet.

So I am a victim of the mp3 effect. I prefer the lower-quality chocolate cake because it’s what I grew up on; therefore I’ve built a preference for it and it was/is convenient for my mom and I to make.

Like Capps’ said this kind of trend started as a result of a souring economy. Sure you’ll always have the few who will pay more money for a better product, but when you’re limited financially all you really need is something that fits your budget and honestly that really is “good enough.”  

So, where is the line, in which quality trumps convenience? Is it independent to the consumer? More importantly, is there any hope of saving my affinity towards instant chocolate cakes? Perhaps, but most likely not.

The Convenience Revolution

Robert Capps wrote an article in The Wired entitled "The Good Enough Revolution: When Cheap and Simple Is Just Fine" where he discusses that with the advances in technology, quality and features are sacrificed for the ease of use, continuous availability and low price. I think his title's choice of words degrades the advantages and improvements this "revolution" has brought.

Our society is constantly looking for ways to make our lives easier and more convenient. Capps talks about the use of digital cameras as one of his "good enough" examples. Even now, digital cameras are declining as smartphone cameras have dominated as our main tool of picture-taking. It's not that smartphone pictures are "good enough." They may not provide the resolution and clarity of a DSLR camera, but they get the job done when you need to capture the moment instantly. Instead of carrying a camera with you, taking it out of your bag, making sure it's charged, etc., a smartphone does the same job with less hassle. Technology is not making things "good enough;" it's simply making things more convenient and easy to use to save time and do more. 

I will counter that although we seek more convenient methods, there are also those who prefer the traditional methods and are willing to forgo price and simplicity, especially for things of high importance to us. People invest in photographers with digital cameras for important events like weddings. Companies buy several copies of newspapers or magazines when their business is distinguishably featured for an important reason. People still buy their favorite DVDs or book in analog version because of the importance in plays in their lives. For the everyday things convenience will win, but its the perceived value that motivates people not to settle for the convenient way.

In the below TED talk by Kevin Kelly, he discusses the evolution of the idea of technology, tracing it back to early civilization. He says, "And so, what technology gives us, over the long term, over the sort of extended evolution -- from the beginning of time, through the invention of the plants and animals, and the evolution of life, the evolution of brains -- what that is constantly giving us is increasing differences: It's increasing diversity, it's increasing options, it's increasing choices, opportunities, possibilities and freedoms. That's what we get from technology all the time." The new technology of Capps' Good Enough Revolution simply provides more options for people to go about their daily lives.

Convenience over Quality?

I think I've touched on this before, but "The Good Enough Revolution" caused me to re-reflect on this issue in our society today. We are a living in a world of now. Last time I talked about it I called it instant gratification, and that isn't far off from what is being described in this article. The article is discussing how our world accepts things as "good enough" instead of actually striving to produce the best quality products. I would have to agree with this.

"Don't believe the myth of quality," Capps says. He's right. We've started accepting lower quality of everything as a trade off for convenience. He gives a number of examples (Kindle versus paper, MP3s versus analog music, etc.), but I can also think of quite a few examples of this from personal experience. There have been more than a handful of times when I've needed something, let's say an iPhone charger. Apple makes the only "verified" iPhone charger and the knock offs are generally way shiftier quality and break fairly quickly. They also cost way less. But they sell the knock offs on Amazon. So I have purchased the knock offs simply because I can get them right away rather than waiting for Apple to process an order for a higher quality product, I've chosen convenience over quality time and time again.

An interesting counter argument to this, however, is the food industry. It is my observation (and experience) that while almost every other area of our life follows the "convenience over quality" mantra, the millennial generation has almost certainly adopted the opposite mantra when it comes to our eating habits. Whereas the generation just above us grew up with staples like Mcdonald's, Taco Bell, and KFC at the dinner table or in the lunchbox, our generation has demanded a higher standard and a new breed of "fast food has emerged because of it. This new breed-- the Chipotle type restaurant, which fuses the order-at-the-counter convenience with the farm-to-table quality that millennials desire-- is popping up all over the country, and is beginning to affect the business of the old conglomerates of fast food. Millennials demand a different taste and style of food than traditional, low-quality, convenient fast food chains can offer.

                           
This Forbes article (where the chart was taken from) shows some interesting statistics about the fast food industry and this change over the past few years. http://www.forbes.com/sites/aliciaadamczyk/2014/07/09/millennials-prefer-quality-over-convenience-reveals-new-survey/#37058a4731fc

In conclusion, I think the "good enough" mindset is certainly a problem we need to address-- but do not think it can be regarded as universal.

Good Enough for Now

Apple recently had one of it's famous conferences, in which millions of viewers tune in and marvel at the innovation that is unveiled. This time around the new iPhone 6 SE was released, which looks like a smaller, not that interesting, version of the current iPhone. Yeah, it has two cameras and whatnot, but I just kept thinking to myself "I know you can do better than that". Perhaps that is my technologically challenged self that maybe doesn't appreciate the innovation of adding another camera, but it just seems like one of the biggest and most powerful digital firms can innovate a little more. They made the phones bigger, now smaller and it just does not make any sense to me. 

Yet, I am sure that people will order, anticipate, and camp out in droves to get their hands on this device simply because it is new and shiny, and it has some sort of function that is promised to make their lives easier.

We are seeing this in tech quite a bit, but as an advertising major I find it very interesting to note the evolution and retaliation that has been seen in web ads. The article points out that text ads are "not high-concept.. but are highly targeted, incredibly cheap..and make up 90% of Google's net revenue and 45% of all internet ad sales in the US" 

This "Good Enough" ideology did not work for long. Consumers were fed up with low quality, intrusive, and distracting ads and started blocking ads all-together. Since last year there has been an increase of 48% in ad block usage in the United States alone, and as AdWeek points out "ad blockers on desktop computers will cost publishers $22 million."

This is forcing the advertising industry to innovate, and innovate significantly. The people have spoken, and the only thing that the ad world can do is adapt. They must bring back quality content, value and entertainment into the equation and not just sell out for empty impressions.

Maybe with the boom of social media and the empowerment of consumers through various platforms, we, as consumers of technology can demand real innovation from companies. Until then guess we will have to continue to settle for the 6 SE, 6SE plus, 7, 7s, 7s plus, 7SE, 7C, 7C plus, 8a, 8b, 8c, 8d, and so on. 

‘This above all: to thine own self be true’: Authenticity in a time of mass consumption

While reading the article "The Good Enough Revolution: When Cheap and Simple is Just Fine" my mind kept thinking about how the definition of quality and better has changed over time and what we want as consumers. 

Robert Capps states that the MP3 effect and "other Good Enough Technologies" have changed what qualities we value. He states that in this age it seems that flexibility, convenience, quick and dirty qualities are preferred over fidelity, features and slow and polished qualities. 

Simon Fleming-Wood from Pure Digital defined "better" as how easy and accessible an action is. When using their products, a consumer can easily shoot video and then just as easily and quickly share it with whomever they want. For Pure Digital being "better" is not about the resolution of an image or the features their devices offer. It's about how easy they can make a task. It gets the task done

And even though, according to Forbes, vinyl sales continue to rise, many people prefer the MP3's sound (if we are going by the study conducted by Professor Jonathan Berger from Stanford University). Some people prefer that sound because they have become "accostumed" and think that music is supposed to sound like that.

In the TED Talk “What Consumers Want,” management advisor and author Joseph Pine says that consumers are looking for authentic experiences. There is no such thing as an "inauthentic" experience, he says, just as there is no such thing as a "natural" one. 

Pine defines authenticity with the verses spoken by Polonius in Hamlet: 

This above all: to thine own self be true,

And it must follow, as the night the day,

Thou canst not then be false to any man.

But being authentic is a little bit complicated. Authenticity has two dimensions, he points out, which are being true to oneself and being what it says it is. This results in four outcomes: Real Fake, Real Real, Fake Fake and Fake Real. Here is the chart:

Is what it says it is                       Real Fake                                        Real Real

Is Not what it says it is                 Fake Fake                                       Fake Real

                                          
                                                Is Not true to itself                               Is true to itself

The best is to be Real Real and the worst is being Fake Fake. Pine says that a company achieves authenticity by knowing their "heritage" and what they represent. He gives advice for both businesses and consumers. 

For the business people there are three simple rules: 

1.  Only say you are authentic if you really are authentic 
2. It's a lot easier to be authentic if you don't say you are
3. If you are going to say that you are authentic, then you better be authentic

For the consumer he only has this to say: "What will make us happy is spending our time and our money satisfying the desire for authenticity."