If you're not sure who the customer is, then it probably isn't you

I don't really care about the Olympics, with the exception of a couple of Men's Basketball games I'm looking forward to catching. For some reason I find it a little odd that so many people suddenly fake interest about things like archery or air rifle or synchronized diving for one day every four years just because we hope our 17 year old kid can defeat the 17 year old kid from some other country.That looks like a fun game, I must admit

But even in my state of extreme Olympic apathy, I have caught, as I am sure you have as well, the ridiculous amount of complaints about the USA TV coverage of these Olympic games, being brought to US TV's, (and smart phones, and tablets, and computers), by NBC.

The chief complaint?  Tape delayed TV coverage, i.e., not televising certain marquee events as they happen live, (mostly in the morning or early afternoon in the USA), and 'saving' them for Prime time broadcast later that evening when TV audiences are at their peak, and in the only part of this that matters, when advertisers pay a hefty premium for commercial time.

Of course in the modern, social age, where everyone is a critic/pundit/expert, the Tape Delay strategy has resulted in what has been branded a colossal #NBCFail, with Twitter, Facebook, and the rest of the more traditional news outlets results of the actual competition outcomes are just about impossible to avoid for the five or six or seven hours lag until NBC deems it appropriate, (and most profitable), to air on TV.

So what many Olympics fans are left with (at least here in the USA), is what amounts to a set of pretty poor options - watch events live on a computer or smart phone (in the middle of the day, not always possible or convenient), try and avoid news or social media reports of event outcomes all day and watch the prime time broadcast (not really feasible for most), or give in to curiosity or inevitability and learn the event outcomes ahead of time, and watch the prime time tape delayed broadcast anyway, (you know, to get all the 'human drama' stuff). 

All three options kind of stink, and if you really cared about this stuff, I can understand your frustration.

But here's the thing, NBC doesn't care about you. NBC is delivering what the customers demand, and they ain't you. The customers are the advertisers, and what they demand - lots and lots of eyeballs on its prime time broadcasts, is definitely being delivered despite the tape delay #NBCFail approach.

You want to know how you can get over your anger and frustration with NBC's Olympic coverage?

Just keep reminding yourself that you're not the customer, you're the product. Say it with me again, you're not the customer, you're the product.

And file the NBC Olympics broadcast coverage into the file along with Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest, foursquare - and wherever else you waste spend your time these days.

Now I have to get back to watching my new favorite sport, Team Handball.

Who Bricked the Electric Car?

You may have caught the story last week about Tesla, the maker of extremely high-end electric vehicles, (EVs), and the accusation that if the $100K Tesla Roadster's battery pack was allowed to drain all the way to zero, (basically to go completely dead), that the car could not be simply re-charged in the normal fashion, and that in fact the entire battery pack would have to be removed and replaced, (at $40K).

This phenomenon, and already some are disputing how much of a real problem it presents, has been termed 'bricking', as in without the ability to operate the $100K Tesla has been effectively turned into a brick. A stylish one no doubt, but a brick nonetheless.  And having your $100K car essentially rendered useless without dropping another 40 large for the repair would have to classify as a bad day, and if indeed this is even a remote possibility, one would hope Tesla has taken adequate precautions and will look to improve the technology such that this kind of bricking either can't happen or really almost would never happen.

But for now, it appears like at least the possibility for bricking exists, according to a follow-up piece in Engadget, the Tesla company (sort-of) acknowledged that a full battery drain would indeed 'brick' the car and issued the following statement:

All automobiles require some level of owner care. For example, combustion vehicles require regular oil changes or the engine will be destroyed. Electric vehicles should be plugged in and charging when not in use for maximum performance. All batteries are subject to damage if the charge is kept at zero for long periods of time. However, Tesla avoids this problem in virtually all instances with numerous counter-measures. Tesla batteries can remain unplugged for weeks (or even months), without reaching zero state of charge. Owners of Roadster 2.0 and all subsequent Tesla products can request that their vehicle alert Tesla if SOC falls to a low level. All Tesla vehicles emit various visual and audible warnings if the battery pack falls below 5 percent SOC. Tesla provides extensive maintenance recommendations as part of the customer experience.

Essentially Tesla is saying, 'Look, we sold you an incredible piece of technology, the most fabulous EV on the market. All you really need to do on your side is to not leave the car idle for months on end and forget to charge it up. And we will even offer to call you up to remind you to run out to the garage and plug in the thing in you forget. For months. Seem reasonable?'

Probably pretty reasonable.  Tesla, like just about any other make of cars, gadgets, games, or even business systems at some stage arrives at the end point of their ability and responsibility to ensure that the consumer will have a great experience with their purchase, and won't actually do something really dumb with their new shiny object after they take it home.

Over on Talented Apps last week, Meg Bear hit upon this point when she re-stated Meg's Law for Talent Management software development -

It is the intention of our team to build excellent, usable software to optimize a well thought out talent strategy.  BUT if you suck, there is nothing we can do in software, to fix that for you. 

And I am pretty sure Meg's Law could apply to Tesla as well.  I am sure it is their intention to build the best EV in the world, but if you suck, and you forget that an EV actually needs to be plugged in once in a while, we can't fix that for you. Or rather we can, but it will cost you $40K.

Sadly, the organizations that Meg is referring to, the ones with the terrible talent strategy, can't get off that easy.

How much does differentiation matter?

When your job is designing and delivering a product or service to the market it is altogether fitting and expected that you'll take an initial and then periodic view of the competitive landscape for said product or service to see how your offering stacks up in the marketplace, and to attempt to find and exploit perceived weaknesses and differences that (hopefully), present your solutions and services in the most positive light.

It just makes sense, and is typically a fundamental piece of any company's 'go to market' strategy. What is the other guy doing? What features does their product have? Should we build those features too? What does our solution provide that the other guy can't match? And how do we best communicate and reinforce those differences that we 'win' on in the market so that there is no confusion about why our products and services are better?

But sometimes, perhaps more often that we like to think, we focus too much on what our competitors are doing, saying, building, etc.; and not enough on what our current and potential customers are saying and doing with our products. 

Last week I caught a really interesting piece on the Fast Company CoDesign site titled 'Think You're An Industry Leader? Not So Fast', that makes an interesting point - that often as product and service designers and implementers, (and that for the most part is everyone working in Human Resources, recruiting, HR Technology, and so on), that this primary focus on competitors detracts from what should really be our true goals - to understand the customers, to empathize with their problems and challenges, and to build systems and solutions to address their needs primarily.

From the CoDesign piece:

This is the first mistake organizations make when thinking about digital interactions with their customers. They measure themselves against the competition instead of really understanding what their customers actually need.

How can you improve your understanding of customer needs? By connecting with customers more deeply and in ways that move the dialog beyond simple check the box RFP exercises.

Again from CoDesign:

In short, you gain empathy for them, (customers). Great applications are created by those who fully empathize with the user’s needs. Our team must walk a day in the life of the person they are designing for and act as a proxy for the user in the design and integrations processes. I was once asked, “Is there such a thing as a stupid user?” The answer is no; there are only ignorant designers. Any good designer will tell you there’s no such thing as user error -- anything the user can’t figure out is just bad design.

It is not easy, I think, to try and lower your sights against your competition. After all, in most purchase decision processes the customers pick one 'winner', while leaving the also-rans to contemplate the reasons why they did not win the contract and secure the customer's business. Perhaps the first step into really thinking more from the customer's point of view is to frame these kinds of post-mortem discussions less in terms of 'Why Did Company 'X' beat us?' and more in terms of 'What customer problem were we unable to solve?'.

What do you think - would more time being spent on understanding and truly empathizing with your customers and less time worrying about Brand 'X' help your business?