7: Attributes, Functions, and Features
The author begins the chapter with a list of concepts that are used in evaluating, defining, and distinguishing products. (EN: These seem a bit sloppy, but I'll go with the author's version.)
- Attribute - A characteristic or property of a product
- Function - A task that a product performs
- Feature - One or more attributes that facilitate a function
Meaning and Product Design
The author speaks of the ongoing conflict between those who advocate for the consumer (user-centered design) and those who advocate for the capabilities and limitations of technology (system-centered design), and proposes a change to meaning-centered design, which he defines as "the emotional and psychological relationships that people have with things" (EN: This is actually part of user-centered design, but I'll play along.)
Consumers are emotional beings, and very often their emotion takes control of them. They are less focused on the functional benefits of product ownership and more on the "meaning" of the experience they have. For example, some people pay a high premium for fashionable shoes, far above the market price of a basic footwear that serves the functional purpose, because being fashionable is very meaningful to them. Others pay a high mark-up for "certified organic" foods because it is important for them to think of themselves as being environmentally conscious. Most people pay a great deal to own and operate automobiles in cities where public transportation is available because it's psychologically important for them to feel free and in control.
The meaningfulness of products is of increasing importance in a market in which most products are commoditized. A company may not be able to create a significant difference in the qualities of their product, but if they can attach meaning to it in the minds of the market, they can win and keep customers against other firms, even when competing offers are cheaper or less useful.
(EN: And therein lies my issue with this approach. Aside of being prone to psychobabble and the latest fashions in pseudo-intellectualism, there's something fundamentally wrong with using psychological tricks to con a person into paying for something that does not deliver an actual benefit. It is ethically shady, and my sense is customers who recognize the trick will be strongly polarized against the brand when they recognize they've been had.)
Turning back from the dark side, the author considers that it is meaning rather than function that makes products attractive to customers. A new function can be implemented, but if it is not meaningful to customers it will have no value to them. While there are some fanboys who want their products to have every imaginable feature whether they need them or not, most people will not be interested in a product unless it has some benefit or meaning to them.
(EN: Fanboy behavior is itself a quest for psychological meaning. They are extremely conspicuous consumers, who feel that they gain social status by virtue of the product they own. It is not that they will ever use these features, but simply having things that are "better" than the things other people own makes them feel like they are better people. This is pretty obvious in the tone they take when showing off their toys to others.)
Identifying Key Attributes, Features, and Meanings
When it comes to attributes, features, and meanings, there is a staggering array of possibilities. Rather than taking the "kitchen sink" approach and attempting to be everything to everyone (which is quite often impossible), a maker must identify which of the attributes, features, and meanings is important to a given consumer. Ideally, the product will be loaded with everything the customer desires, without the added expense of anything that they do not desire, to maximize profit. But how does one know what qualities are important to the audience?
There is no clear answer, but the author instead provides a volley of bullets of things to consider. Each of these qualities can be considered in and of itself or in comparison to competitors' offerings.
- Functional Goals. What is the user attempting to do with the product? What problem are they attempting to solve? What qualities are necessary to achieving their desired goals?
- Durability. How long will the customer expect the product to last? Do they expect it to be serviceable for a long period of time, or is it something they will use once and throw away? Are they willing to pay more for a more durable product?
- Convenience. How easy is it to use the product to accomplish the goal? Is the customer willing to undertake much effort, or is it a benefit of the product to make the task effortless?
- Reliability. How well does the product perform its intended function? Is there a chance that it will fail? Is it something that requires a lot of maintenance and repairs? Does the product perform well under a variety of environmental conditions?
- Difficulty. What will customers need to know/learn in order to use the product properly and effectively? How much of an inconvenience is it?
- Performance. Can the power, speed, or other capabilities be improved to complete the task faster or better?
- Aesthetics. Is the product attractive and packaged properly? Does it convey the appropriate impression?
- Technology. Has the technology progressed since the last time the product was updated to provide anything that will improve the product?
- Value. Do customers feel the benefit of the product is worth its price? Can the benefits be increased or the price decreased?
- Meaning. Does the product speak to the appropriate emotional desires of the customer? Do they feel it is appropriate or desirable for the kind of person they wish to be perceived as?
- Market. Is there a more profitable market segment to whom the product can be positioned?
The author suggests that it is particularly important to engage customers and prospects in answering the questions - the success or failure of a product does not depend on what insiders think of it, nor even the industry press, but on the way that it is perceived by the customer.
Facilitating Control
Philosophically, it is a defining characteristic of human beings to attempt to control their environment - meanwhile, the feeling of being out-of-control is one of our greatest horrors. Having control gives a feeling of safety and empowerment - and while the ethics of exerting control over other human beings is debatable (this is the basis of most political conflicts), it is clear that man demands to have dominion over things and expects to have control over the people who accept payment for service.
- Primary Control - An individual is able to directly interact with the environment to achieve a desired outcome. A homeowner waters his lawn to cause the grass to grow.
- Secondary Control - An individual is able to give instruction to other people who will perform the task that will achieve his desired outcome. The homeowner tells his gardener to water the lawn.
- Illusion of Control - An individual performs activities that have no actual connection to an outcome, but which he believes to be correlated. The homeowner does a rain dance to cause the spirits to water his lawn.
- No control - An individual understands that he is at the mercy of the environment and has no method of achieving a desired outcome. The homeowner hopes that it will rain.
Psychologically, the individual discounts the participation of objects and agents when considering the outcome of his control. He will say "I watered the lawn" rather than "the sprinkler watered the lawn" or "my gardener watered the lawn." It is in the same way that video game players speak in the first person about activities their avatar perfomed (I leapt the gorge and slew the dragon). To the individual, it is his intention to do the act, rather than the physical requirements of performing it, that convey a sense of power, that his will has been done.
Dragging this back to topic, the author suggests that makers should consider the level of control that an individual has when using a product or a service. Generally, the more the better - but it must be within their capabilities. To own a product or hire a service that does not accomplish its desired outcome causes frustration instead of satisfaction because the consumer feels disempowered.
There's a brief diversion about social media - how it is largely about bragging to others of accomplishments in order to gain esteem or influence their social perception. In many instances, the things that people do are not to achieve the outcome of the activity, but to make such an impression on others: climbing a mountain, wearing jewelry, and other such activities clearly render no functional benefit to the performer. Having control is about self-esteem, and demonstrating control is about gaining esteem in the eyes of others.
The Importance of Features
The author suggests a classification scheme for considering the importance of any proposed feature that was "derived from a variety of sources."
- Must-Haves - A "must have" feature is one that is critical to delivering the benefit for which a customer seeks a product. If that feature is not included, the customer won't consider purchasing.
- Points of Parity - Points of parity are features that are expected of a product in a competitive marketplace. The product must have these features to be considered an alternative or substitute for competing products.
- Differentiator - A differentiator is a feature that is valued by a customer that does not exist in competing products. It is the reason that the customer chooses a specific brand over others.
- Exciters - An exciter is a feature that creates market buzz, whether it is useful to customers are not. They are generally brand new and uncontested in the marketplace. In some instances, they are merely hype and never make it to market.
- Vestigial Features - These are features that were once demanded by the market, but are no longer interesting. They are generally maintained only because a small segment of the market considers them to be a must-have and are discontinued when this segment is too small to be profitable.
- Discouragers - These are features that are undesirable to customers, and actually cause them to shun a brand. (Consider a "real fur" collar on a jacket now that fur is no longer fashionable.) They generally exist because an insider who is out of touch with the market insists on them.
The FAD Template
The author proposes the adoption of his own tool, a template that seeks to graphically represent the value of product features. Essentially, it lists features on the X axis and their importance to a given market segment on the Y axis, drawing separate lines for the as-is product, a proposed to-be version, the customer's desired product profile, and possibly competitors offerings.
(EN: As an information graphic, it is very badly conceived. However, one can visually appreciate how far a given product is from the ideal line, and whether a product is closer than another product to it.)
There's copious detail and examples - but in the end, it's simply a brainstorming tool: for any feature or quality in which the existing product is lacking, it is an indication of a need for adjustment. Start with the areas in which a product is furthest from the desired mark and ask how it might be brought more in line with customer expectations.
(EN: A second problem here is that this is not very innovative - the company is focused with meeting existing expectations and conforming closely to a defined standard, rather than considering where something new might add value that would be appreciated by customers.)
He also briefly suggests that in some instances, this will identify a need for complementary products or customizations: rather than building features and functions into the primary product, they can be offered as optional features or provided in the form of a separate product that will be purchased along with the first.
The "Swiss Army Knife" Approach
The author refers to the hackneyed example of the Swiss Army Knife, a cumbersome tool that does many things poorly. This is often the result when a firm attempts to cram every feature they can imagine into a single product, rather than focusing on doing a specific task or serving a specific customer very well. (EN: This analogy is a alignment of the brand, as Swiss Army offers an array of models that offer tools that are germane to a specific task - there's a model for golfers, another for fishermen, several for camping, etc.)
He goes to the modern example: the mobile phone, for which seemingly every company wants to provide an application because it expects customers will want to do business with them in that channel. The problem for users is feature bloat, which is already evident in a device that went from having one screen of applications to multiple screens, folders within folders, and other tricks, all to manage the growing clutter of features. As a result, mobile fanboys may have thousands of applications on their devices, but the average user has far fewer.
(EN: This caught my interest and I researched it further, to find that statistics are all over the place. Reasonable sources suggest that people have anywhere from 20 to 95 applications installed on their devices, but they only use 22-28 of them per month [including email, chat, and games] and only 7-8 are used once per week or more. Monitoring downloads at popular sites, it's suggested that nearly two-thirds of users download less than 1 application per month and less than 5% download 5 or more.)
It's also suggested that there is a feature curve for any new technology. When it first comes out, it is adopted by enthusiasts who want every feature they can get. After the initial mania, fewer and fewer features are desired and the main market accepts a basic set and considers the rest to be clutter that detracts from the value of the device. It's also common for the initial brands to suffer from "feature creep" of adding new features without replacing old ones and becoming thoroughly bloated, at which point smaller competitors offering a tighter set of valued features bit off pieces of their market.
An excellent example of this is the search engine Google. The first wave of Internet search engines included now-forgotten brands such as Yahoo, Alta Vista, HotBot, and others that began as search engines, then added directories, then added newsfeeds, then added feature after feature until their sites bogged down and became nearly unusable. Google came along with a single search field and two buttons, and put them all out of business by serving customers who simply wanted to find something online.
(EN: The other half of the story is commercialization. What really killed off the old sites is that the advertising obscured the valuable content, and even replaced it when search engines offered paid listings - such that the top five "hits" were not search results at all. Google has been very cautious about advertising on their search engine, though it tends to wax and wane.)