It Ain't Innovation if No One Wants To Buy What You're Selling
from the innovation-is-about-making-something-people-want dept
In case you missed it, last month Gibson, the famed guitar company, filed for bankruptcy. Matt LeMay has a really fascinating and worth reading Medium post up, claiming that Gibson's failure is a "cautionary tale about innovation." He compares what Gibson's management did over the past few years to another big name in guitars: Fender. And finds quite a telling story in the contrast.
Specifically, he notes that Gibson doubled down on "innovation" and trying to come up with something new -- almost none of which really seemed to catch on, while more or less ignoring the core product. Meanwhile, Fender took a step back and looked at what the data showed concerning what its existing customers wanted, and realized that it wasn't serving the customer as well as it could. LeMay points to a Forbes interview with Fender CEO, Andy Mooney, where he explains:
“About two years ago we did a lot of research about new guitar buyers. We were hungry for data and there wasn’t much available. We found that 45% of all the guitars we sell every year go to first-time players. That was much higher than we imagined. Ninety percent of those first-time players abandoned the instrument in the first 12 months — if not the first 90 days — but the 10% that didn’t tended to commit to the instrument for life and own multiple guitars and multiple amps.
We also found that 50% of new guitar buyers were women and that their tendency was to buy online rather than in a brick and mortar store because the intimidation factor in a brick and mortar store was rather high.
The last thing we found was that new buyers spend four times as much on lessons as they do on equipment. So that shaped a number of things. It shaped the commitment we made to Fender Play because we felt there was an independent business opportunity available to us that we’d never considered before because the trend in learning was moving online. We also found we needed to communicate more to the female audience in terms of the artists we connect with, in terms of using women in our imagery and thinking generally about the web.”
The end result is two very different approaches to innovation. LeMay points out that this is perfectly demonstrated in what you see when you go to each company's website:
A cursory glance at Fender’s website tells you a lot about how the company has implemented their findings: pictures of women playing their instruments dominate, and the “Fender Play” platform for learning how to play guitar is given equal billing with the guitars themselves. (Gibson’s website, on the other hand, features a picture of Slash with the headline “global brand ambassador” — a noxious and deeply company-centric piece of marketing jargon if ever there was one.)
It's a really good point, though I think it's slightly misplaced to argue that the problem was Gibson's focus on "innovation." The problem is Gibson's focus on something new and shiny without paying enough attention to what people actually wanted. If you've done anything in product development ever, you've probably heard the famous (and probably apocryphal) Henry Ford quote:
“If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.”
This is often deeply embedded in the minds of people who are quite sure they're coming up with the next great thing. And it's rarely actually true. There are exceptions, of course, but they are really few and far between. True innovation tends to come from better understanding what people actually want to accomplish and then helping them better do that. Sometimes it's coming up with something new. Sometimes it's coming up with a new way to sell. Or a more convenient way to use something. Or a better business model. Or a better way to educate. There are all sorts of innovations.
Indeed, digging deep into the Techdirt archives, I'm reminded of the debates we used to have about the difference between invention and innovation. Invention is coming up with something new. Innovation is successfully bringing something to a market that wants it. Sometimes the processes overlap, but not always. But, as we've pointed out (in the context of debates over patents), it's usually the innovation (successfully bringing something to market in a way that people want) that's much more important in the grand scheme of things than invention (just making something new).
It seems clear from looking at the approaches that Gibson and Fender each took that one focused on true innovation: figuring out a better way to solve the needs of customers. The other used the falsely promoted definition of innovation -- the one that is more synonymous with just "coming up with something completely new." (On a separate note, it's also possible that some of Gibson's problems stemmed from the ridiculous decision by the Justice Department to seize a bunch of its wood for extremely dubious reasons).
It would be a useful lesson in understanding innovation to recognize that that the innovation that matters is the one that best serves customers. Not the one that is just bright and shiny and loud.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: business models, customers, guitars, innovation, invention
Companies: fender, gibson
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Seems that Fender actually gave a shit to their customers. Sadly this is a good selling point nowadays.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
For most people 5G merely means that you could burn through your monthly data cap in the first ten minutes of the month rather than the first hour.
Or that a rogue app could do it for you, sending you into huge data overage charges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Incredible speed... that you can't fully use
Funny how that never comes up in the ads...
'Upgrade your plan today and you too can enjoy blindly fast connection speeds for all your needs... right until you run smack into the data cap we imposed a while back, which will either throttle you back down to speeds that make your current rate look fast, or result in you paying massive overage fees.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Incredible speed... that you can't fully use
On mobile it's even more outrageous because the speed is not 50, 100 times slower but the limits are. And I'm not even considering autoplaying crap and advertisement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/gibson-guitar-raid-like-tea-party-intimidation/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, they have a history of partisan wingnuttery.
My favorite was during the 2009 healthcare debate. Their editorial claim:
They later admitted that Hawking lived in the U.K.
Hawking's response:
What Gibson did was made illegal under a Bush II-era amendment to the Lacey Act. (Those opposed argued that the motivation for the act was to protect US lumber jobs. In other words, it would have passed under Trump too.)
But as your article claims, competitors in China (making luxury bed, not guitars) aren't subject to US environmental law so it's all Obama's fault.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A good start
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A good start
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A good start
Anyone trying to learn on the Internet who does not have some social media account where they can post images and videos, and ask for help, is wasting their time. However, by using such channels they can get help from a multitude of sources.
The power of the Internet is in the Interactivity that it enables, which multiples the effectiveness of the knowledge it also makes available.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A problem/issue in software.
I normally would show them one of my notebooks. Which had several ideas per page, often in extensive detail, that I'd had over the last year. Yep, couple of notebooks per year, many decades in the business.
Your idea isn't new. You lack the capacity to be innovative and no, I really don't want to help you conquer the world. Software world or otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The pro-IP lobby—as well as managers and engineers who think they are only as good as the number of patents they can take credit for—desperately want everyone to believe that the public domain is an outmoded cesspool where no one can compete and is bad for business. Yet 99% of the design and function of a guitar is in the public domain. Several companies make quality versions and built very successful businesses around it. One was not going to suddenly crush the other by tweaking a guitar's design and function any more than Coke was going to destroy Pepsi by changing the cola recipe in the '80s.
Nevertheless, the "innovative" approach of Fender's rival, Gibson, was to try to modify the 1% of the design and function of a guitar in ways that would be protected by intellectual property law, even if it meant doing things people didn't want. The result was the company crashed and burned, and Fender didn't have to do a thing to make that happen.
Even if Gibson had followed Fender's lead, it would not made Fender's approach any less successful or less worthwhile. Both companies have operated in the same market space for decades. Fender knows it only needs to stay profitable, not bet the farm on wiping out the competition through trademark and patent shenanigans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bass players are exactly the opposite. The bass world is constantly innovating and adapting new technology. I love walking into gigs with my 4 pound, 800 watt amp.
Gibson's strength is its history. Vintage Gibsons are worth ridiculous amounts of money, and for new guitars, the closer a particular model is to a vintage Gibson, the more popular it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your customers might say something different in a survey from what they do/need. So you need to figure that out (see A/B testing).
The marketing department wants simple results that are easy to put in ads, especially when they do not understand the technical issues involved. They are not primarily concerned with `unsexy' basics (e.g. usability).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]