3: Quantitative Relevance
Contrary to popular conception, innovation doesn't start with a stunning idea. It starts with the recognition of a problem, a need that cannot be fulfilled. And then, there comes the stunning idea that solves that problem. (EN: My sense is that's invention. Innovation starts with a problem that has been solved, but the solution isn't working very well, and the stunning idea finds a way to improve the solution. But perhaps I'm splitting hairs?)
Particularly in the world of commerce, a brilliant idea that doesn't solve a problem or fulfill a need is not worthwhile because it can't be sold. It may be brilliant, but it doesn't do anything for anyone. Or from the customer's perspective, it may be brilliant, but it is not relevant to their needs. What you have is a solution in search of a problem, or a product that no-one will buy.
And in order to be successful, the problem that the idea solves has to be worth something to the consumer - specifically, it must be worth a price the consumer is willing to pay. The most expensive product is never the most popular product - people acknowledge that the most popular one lacks certain features or capacities that the top-of-the-line model has, but feel that for the price they would rather do without.
Only certain people want certain things - and they are only willing to pay so much for them.
Everything to Everyone
To begin, you cannot be all things to all people.
Given the diversity of lifestyles and fashions, you cannot find a product that suits everyone. Just walk down the water aisle of your local market - and consider that you are walking down an entire aisle of water choices. At one time, people were happy with what came from the tap and now there are scores of options. If people can't be happy with the world's most basic commodity, and the solution to a basic human need, what chance is there of creating any more advanced product that everyone will like.
Second, people differentiate themselves from one another. Even if your product serves the needs of both men and women, the sexes prefer a product that is specialized to their needs (even if it's the same stuff in a different box). If you convince the world that your product is great for old people, teenagers will shun it. But that's assuming you can develop a product that will suit the needs of everyone - sometimes, a product must be customized for a specific group because they do have specific needs.
Third, the more people you try to reach with a product, the more you have to accommodate the lowest common denominator of needs and tastes, which makes your produce extremely bland. In being suitable for everything, your product becomes particularly good for nothing - it is a commodity, a generic product, without anything specific to cause people to prefer your brand over any other. And in fact, users will be lured away by products that are tailored to be relevant to their specific needs.
(EN: There is some argument about that, and what economists find is that it's a matter of affordability. People turn to commodities and generic products during times of economic hardship, but abandon them quickly when there is a recovery.)
A Small Number of Loyal Users
Coville suggests that the best way to build relevance is to create a small corps of "ridiculously loyal" customers to serve as your foundation and build out from there. However, you must remain loyal to those who are loyal to you: change you character to appeal to additional customers, and you will lose your core.
The word "niche" has often been used in a derogatory sense, as if a firm that provides a small number of users cannot be profitable. It can, in fact, be extremely profitable - though its growth potential is not infinite. Of course, no-one's growth potential is infinite: those who think they can be everything to everyone may assume this, but per the earlier discussion it simply is not true.
(EN: The term "sustainability" has been used latterly in strategy circles, meaning that seeking constant and infinite growth is not a good strategy as it eventually burns itself out - but instead, firms should seek to define a target market and a number of customers it can serve profitably for many years. The notion is gathering steam.)
Consider the motion picture industry: no film appeals to everyone. Most appeal to a small niche. Consider that the "Star Wars" movies were made for science fiction fanatics, who were a fringe element and not considered to be a mass audience - but the film was wildly popular and interest spread. (EN: While Lucas never pandered to the mass markets, he did become rather self-obsessed and poisoned the well with his later offerings. They made good jack at the box office, but poisoned the brand for many loyalists.)
There are a number of firms that cater to the tastes of a relatively small number of people, but make a very good and steady profit - she lists several examples. (EN: It gets excessive.)
Can Everyone Be Relevant to Someone?
The author posits that any product can find an audience that is relevant to someone - with the exception of products so thoroughly rotten or so obscenely overpriced that no-one would buy them, there is a market for almost any product.
There is also the question as to whether the market is sizable enough to be served. If you have a product that is only relevant to a very small number of people, you may not be able to manufacture it at the price they are willing to pay and still turn a sufficient profit.
(EN: The author provides an example in which she explains how to make a product relevant to a customer that seems ill-suited, but it's very silly and likely impractical as she ignores some of the constraints of the customer. The point is to think outside the box, maybe invent alternate uses for the product, or sell it based on psychological rather than functional benefits.)
Random Thoughts
Coville has some random bits ...
Timing
She gives the example of the Apple Newton as a product ahead of its time. Personal Digital Assistances (PDAs) became popular for maintaining calendars, taking notes, and the like - but Apple got out to market too quickly, at a time that people weren't ready for it, and the product was not sustainable.
(EN: That may be an exaggeration - the market was ready, but the Newton was a terrible product that was unwieldy and didn't work quite right. The PDA was very popular just a few years later, but Apple missed the boat and likely poisoned its brand by rushing a bad product to market. Unless you can point to a specific change in the environment or consumer that made a once-useless product useful, it's generally bad execution - design, marketing, pricing, or logistics - rather than being "too soon. )
By the same token, there is also an end-date for product relevance, which occurs when something else has been introduced that serves the market better. You likely could not sell a PDA today given that smart phones have all the capabilities of a PDA and more.
Her advice is that you should do a periodic audit - once every six months - to determine whether you are in risk of falling out of relevance. (EN: for technology products, probably an even shorter interval)
Customer Lifespan
Another things to consider is the customer lifespan: a product such as baby formula becomes irrelevant to a given customer as soon as their child begins eating solid foods and you will lose relevance with that customer (until they have another child) and must constantly reach out to new customers to replace those that age out.
Likewise, a location-specific business in a location that is dwindling (such as a town that people are leaving) will have a shrinking market that has nothing to do with their marketing efforts, but environmental forces.
Changing Habits
A difficult, but possible approach to gaining relevance is to get the customer to change their habits to need your product, rather than changing your product to suit their habits. A truly new product must do this - to sell charcoal, the manufacturer had to sell people on the idea of cooking out in their back yards at home as a leisure activity (which was previously not a common practice).
It's also possible to sell new uses for old products - such as encouraging the use of baking soda as a cleaning product, (EN: though this likely took advantage of the public's growing distaste for "industrial chemicals" which was not something that the manufacturer created.)
Common Mistakes
Coville mentions a couple of common mistakes.
First, there is the problem of making assumptions that are too broad. For example, you might imagine that people who purchase luxury cars are a good market for luxury furnishings - which seems intuitive, though luxury cars also attract a lot of people who can't really afford them, and must make sacrifices in other areas (such as furnishings) to make the payments.
A second mistake is in trying to sell too many benefits. Products often have different features that appeal to different audiences. To stick with the automotive example, a company might create a high-performance muscle car that has a lot of safety features - but the notion of fast-and-safe might confuse the audience because the two are opposites in the mind of the consumer. So advertising for a speedy-safe care might alienate both audiences.
With that in mind, it's generally better to start with the market - build a product around a consumer rather than trying to build consumers around a product.