Comments on: Locating value in interaction design consultancies

By: jennifer crakow » Blog Archive » links for 2008-01-18

jennifer crakow » Blog Archive » links for 2008-01-18 — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:29:21 +0000

[...] peterme.com :: Locating value in interaction design consultancies [...]

By: Marketing Is Not A Tax You Pay For Being Unremarkable at Like It Matters

Marketing Is Not A Tax You Pay For Being Unremarkable at Like It Matters — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:13:23 +0000

[...] Marketing is changing in radically interesting ways. I do think that marketers are being called upon to draw together the people who make products and the people who use them. This translation/interpretation role is a radically new one. As Peter notes, Adaptive Path is only interested in taking jobs where they get to help make things — to help create value via the product itself. Or Will picks up the idea of unlaunching a product as key to keeping the focus on making the thing awesome and not merely creating a meta safety net of buzz around it. [...]

By: Bogdan

Bogdan — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 02:38:59 +0000

FROG url is frogdesign.com not frog.com
You are welcomed!

By: Sadrhino

Sadrhino — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 19:13:45 +0000

“I’ve just been mulling over why product design firms, which create value, don’t seem to be perceived as valuable as marketing design firms.”

I think this is because good marketing can convince people that they NEED something, no matter how idiotic or useless that thing is (think pet rocks or, um, movies with Sylvester Stallone in them)… Which in turn means money rolling in…

Fabulously designed products can be, well, fabulous, but don’t guarantee people will buy them. Actually, I’d say it’s more normal for a poorly designed product with great marketing to succeed than a well designed product with little marketing.

By: Infovore » links for 2008-01-04

Infovore » links for 2008-01-04 — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 23:19:51 +0000

[...] peterme.com :: Locating value in interaction design consultancies “I’ve just been mulling over why product design firms, which create value, don’t seem to be perceived as valuable as marketing design firms.” (tags: product design brand marketing advertising) [...]

By: links for 2008-01-02 (Leapfroglog)

links for 2008-01-02 (Leapfroglog) — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 06:26:44 +0000

[...] peterme.com :: Locating value in interaction design consultancies “We don’t want to work on the stuff that talks about the thing — we want to work on the thing itself.” Same here. (tags: interactiondesign IxD consulting product design industrialdesign marketing advertising value) [...]

By: Jason Mesut

Jason Mesut — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 19:46:24 +0000

Thanks for your post. This is something I have had to think through a lot over the past few years. LBi, the company I work at, has a lot of heritage as a company full of people who design the thing but a great deal of our work is going into the marketing side. I am very impressed with Adaptive Path’s position on this, as it is a view I share.

I have always had a great deal of frustration with the amount of money invested in marketing in comparison to product development, as well as the stark differences in raw talent needed for each. I remember hearing one of my clients state how as a rule of thumb, you should spend something like five times as much on marketing your product as you do developing it. That statement disgusted me as someone passionate about making great products rather than pushing average ones.

I think there are also some interesting things to consider with respect to digital and physical designers…I trained as an Industrial Designer but couldn’t possibly work in that profession since going digital. Generally speaking, digital pays way better, there is more chance for progression, and bizarrely you have more power with your clients. Some of my physical design peers who I went to college with or know from outside were generally more talented by me but now earn less. That sucks and I have always felt guilty for being so successful yet not half as skilled.

I don’t believe that product design investments will increase greatly in the short term, though I would love that. The companies have great designers who will always do great work for little financial compensation, because these guys are passionate. The challenge for getting people to buy the product is still getting it out there and known. Yes, the product will still have to stand for itself once bought, and ‘loved’ products like most of apple’s will help future sales, but I believe that apple are a rare case (nb, they still spend a shedload on advertising and pr).

Anyway, some food for thought indeed.

By: peterme

peterme — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 19:02:46 +0000

I also wonder if we'll ever live in a time where people are willing to spend more up front to save down the line. The "Get Me The Geeks" segment on 60 Minutes shows that a lot of value is currently located after-purchase, in service and support. Could product companies capture some of that value by having better, easier-to-use products that cost a little more to buy, but don't cost as much to configure and maintain? Will consumers ever figure that out, or will the majority continue to focus solely on initial price?

By: peterme

peterme — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 18:59:56 +0000

Gong–
I’m not shocked. I know it’s the way of the world. But I wonder for how long — marketing was dominant in the age of mass, and particularly broadcast, media. But as companies realize that “marketing spend” doesn’t have the same impact in the age of hyper-word-of-mouth, and as we have more circumstances like more and more products being returned even through the product isn’t broken (it’s just too hard to figure out), I suspect value will continue to shift towards product design investments.

By: peterme

peterme — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 18:55:56 +0000

We actually did a fair amount of soul searching around that. Measure Map was a great experience, but it didn’t come without risks — if it hadn’t succeeded, it would have been a terrible blow to the company. By the time MM was acquired, we were at around 18 or so employees. We couldn’t simply become a product firm — we had too much overhead, so we would have needed to take investment. (37Signals was much smaller when they made the switch.)

We considered remaining a hybrid services/product firm, but we realized that that split serves neither side well. So, we decided to focus our energies on the services side of the business. It gives us the greatest freedom to do all the things we want to do (including events and R&D), and best allows us to fulfill our mission — the deliver great experiences that improves people’s lives.

All that said, I could see a future, when we’re big enough, that we might again pursue product development, because if a product were to fail, it wouldn’t be much of a burden on the rest of the org. But not for a while, at least.