Forced entry
Wednesday, June 7th, 2006As I mentioned in my previous post, most companies today place an irrational belief and investment in the notion of customer satisfaction. Before we get too deep into this topic, let’s break down what satisfaction is, and what it isn’t in light of today’s business environment.
When looking at the etymology of satisfaction, one might get the idea that it is a worthy thing to invest in. I mean seriously: “reparation for sin that meets the demands of divine justice” Reparation for sins? As producers, we’re certainly guilty of that.
But, what we as humans… as citizens… as real people forget is just how cynical we are about business today. What is satisfaction, but a judgement point that brings nuetrality of opinion or forgiveness to a sin? Let me put this another way. If sin is to crime, then satisfaction is to parole. Or, in plain english: satisfaction isn’t about being great, its about being forgiven or not getting punished.
In the context of Christensen’s Innovator’s dilemma, it is important to note th
at new technologies fail to adhere to the accepted performance metrics. Translated: innovations that win redefine how satisfaction is measured. Further, in taking the approach of Guy Kawasaki or the ideas touched on in Moore’s Crossing the Chasm
As the competition continues to continues to refine their new innovation and redefines what the market place perceives as valueable, the incumbent has a moving target which they need to meet.
What tends to occur, instead, is that companies in today’s marketplace would prefer to use traditional “war” metaphores to conquere new markets and place military regimes in place to control the native populations. The new products which are positioned in those markets are similar to types of local uprisings which overthrow the existing governments.
The people (or citizens) in countries and in markets prefer benevolent leadership. When the party in power acts more like a dictator than an elected politician, their real problems start. In the same vein, when the party in power seeks to meet the needs of everyone all the time, they are more likely to meet the needs of no one.
