16 ms·

Automakers: Don't Ask Customers What They Want

157 points by csours 9y ago

csours 9y ago
This was interesting to me because it re-iterates the one of the lessons of The Innovators Dilemma: doing what your customers ask can be dangerous.
- slowmovintarget 9y ago
  Leadership without principles isn't leadership. Doing what your customers ask without balancing that against a strong sense of why your product is a success leads to "kosher pork chops". It betrays a lack of vision.
pascalxus 9y ago
yes, the customer isn't always right. The customer doesn't understand all the tradeoffs. If you make a car bigger, that comes with lots of compromises: less style, less fuel economy, etc.
- Slackwise 9y ago
  The customer isn't always right, but, the customer also didn't ask for glued-in smartphone batteries, removing the MicroSD slot, or removing the headphone jack.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - bluGill 9y ago
    No, but the customer did ask for cheaper phones. They asked for water proof phones (to infinite depth). They like the way slimmer phones look. All of these conspire to push manufacturers to make the changes you have listed.
    - pessimizer 9y ago
      > They asked for water proof phones (to infinite depth) They definitely didn't. > They like the way slimmer phones look. Do they, or was that marketing that worked? Did they really want thinner phones that were too large to easily fit in a pocket?
      - Zak 9y ago
        > Did they really want thinner phones that were too large to easily fit in a pocket? For the most part, I think they do. Sony has been offering smaller (4.6", usually) phones for years. They're a little thicker than average, have reasonably competitive specs, fairly stock Android, unlockable bootloaders, SD cards and good cameras. Many of them were even waterproof. That's pretty much the feature set a large segment of the tech-savvy community has been asking for. How many of us have one? Meanwhile, phones larger than the current average tend to have strong sales. I think it's mainly driven by people using their phones for an increasing number of tasks they previously would have done on a PC.
        bsder 9y ago
        Sony isn't a good example because it's phones are outrageously expensive relative to competition.
      - bluGill 9y ago
        They did. Many of my friends have dropped their phones in the tub or toilet over the years and asked for a phone that wouldn't be destroyed when that happens. Note that the point is customer behavior in buying does not match their stated desires. I own a fairly small phone that is waterproof (to 1 meter), but everybody I know thinks I'm weird for having an off brand phone.
      - Crespyl 9y ago
        What the market asked for is "the new phone", which frees up the manufacturers to select whatever (lack of) features makes their lives easy, and the market has demonstrated that they will keep lining up to buy the newest and most expensive models (so long as it doesn't literally explode in their pockets).
  - mikestew 9y ago
    Isn’t that back to the Fordian “faster horse”, though? Or perhaps that falls apart with the glued-in battery, and instead it’s “you can have a faster horse, but we have to take the legs off and install wheels”. Or maybe analogies just don’t work, and it’s “you want it thin and waterproof? We can do that, but we’re gluing the battery in.” No, customers didn’t ask for such batteries, but customers did ask for other things that require a permanently installed battery.
    - pessimizer 9y ago
      > Isn’t that back to the Fordian “faster horse”, though? The Fordian "faster horse" doesn't have much merit, though. What customers wanted was a faster cart. That's also exactly what they got. What they wanted out of horses was for them to be easier to store, and cheaper and less labor intensive to maintain. They got bicycles and motorcycles.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- tabtab 9y ago
  > The customer doesn't understand all the tradeoffs. Exactly! "Tuning" technology with the right features is an exercise in tradeoff-management. A better approach would be to ask customers to rank features, either against each other, and/or in general. "Driver visibility is more important to me than styling": [strongly agree][somewhat agree][not sure or mixed feelings][somewhat disagree][strongly disagree]. Of course styling is hard to judge without actually seeing what's at stake, but technical features may be easier to compare without visuals. However, doing such surveys right will require customers who are ready and willing to take longer surveys. Perhaps give a general brand gift certificate to participants. There are special ways to construct surveys to ensure responses actually reflect customer opinions (consistency checks).
- PeterisP 9y ago
  IMHO tradeoffs is the key word here. In all the auto examples, the customers said they liked X, but disliked Y - and then the manufactured fixed Y at some (slight, but still) cost to X, and that wasn't acceptable. The fact itself that they bought that car is an indicator that to them, X is far more valuable than Y - the "missing" feature is a nice to have thing that they'll consider as a differentiator only if the things they liked in the old car are the same or improved; they're not eager to trade off the feature because of which they bought the old car just to get the missing one.
En_gr_Student 9y ago
Steve Jobs would not approve of how auto makers do this, even though the article pretends to quote his style. It actually doesn't and falls prey to the one-at-a-time test problem.
- chadgeidel 9y ago
  Bob Lutz is almost the Steve Jobs of the auto world. At least in his own mind. :-)
Anechoic 9y ago
That explains the lack of decent infotainment systems these days, perhaps availability of CarPlay/Android Auto will help moderate this view.
- giarc 9y ago
  I think the fact that car companies are not tech UI/UX design experts is the reason infotainment systems are so terrible these days. They can design a nice interior, but designing a system that looks nice, works well, and can play nice with iOS/Android/Windows/etc isn't their forte.
  - cr0sh 9y ago
    Car companies don't usually design these things; heck, most don't design many of the parts of vehicles. Everything is offloaded to third-party car part manufacturers who make things to an OEM spec (and later supply replacement components to the repair and maintenance market) - but in many cases they also supply their own parts, which can be picked and chosen by the manufacturer. In the case of infotainment, the standard unit is DIN size; usually double-DIN for most systems today (hidden behind the plastic dash panels); the parts manufacturer designs and builds a number of components and units for that (along with software and such), and the car manufacturer picks it out of a catalog (if there's something that will work). Otherwise a more customized option is done (and then back to your comment of course). This applies to engines, drivetrains, and virtually every other component of the car, with the exception of the frame and bodywork (interior and exterior) - though even there the part manufacturers lend their hands and expertise to the task, because they have to supply replacement components for those items as well usually. Many of these parts suppliers used to be wholly owned by the auto manufacturers (some still are), but more than a few are independent as well, and supply parts to various manufacturers. Others are more independent, but only supply to a single manufacturer or brand. All this is to say that an automobile manufacturer today doesn't necessarily do everything completely in-house like they used to. It is much more complicated and fragmented today. At least, that is how I understand it.
  - GVIrish 9y ago
    I think there are a couple of reasons vehicle infotainment systems are somewhat bad across the board. For starters, cars only get redesigned about every 5 years. That means that most major models that are on the market right now, have only had a full screen interface for 2, maybe 3 generations. So manufacturers can't iterate on what works and what doesn't in terms of their design/development process as quickly as other electronic products. Figuring out how good, is good enough, and what kinds of personnel, suppliers, and processes you need to design an excellent infotainment system is something that naturally took the auto industry a lot longer than say, smartphones or TV's. Because of that, it took a long time for them to even figure out how a car infotainment should fit in with smartphones. And it took a lot of them a long time to figure out that making an interface touchscreen-only for a car is actually an anti-pattern.
lighthazard 9y ago
Reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Homer designs his own car: https://i.imgur.com/2O4f9EO.jpg https://i.imgur.com/2O4f9EO.jpg
- strict9 9y ago
  Always use example when talking to PMs or UX designers about features. Asking customers what features they want is a quick way to get into trouble. If they really need it, they will let you know.
- rconti 9y ago
  http://www.thehomercar.com/ http://www.thehomercar.com/
- wpietri 9y ago
  Absolutely. I use the Homer example all the time when helping people with user interviews. I think it's ok to ask people what they want; it can spark some interesting design notions. But it's important to realize that can have very little to do with what they buy or are happy with. So also ask them why they want it and explore how an expressed desire fits into the context of all their other wants, both spoken and implicit. At the end of the day, people designing something have to be true authors of that thing. We can't outsource our judgment to anything, survey results very much included. User ideas are sources of interesting design hypotheses, but we're still responsible for testing them vigorously and producing a coherent whole.
- fullshark 9y ago
  Also the Poochie focus group
- julienfr112 9y ago
  I could not let the memory of this episode slep my mind during the whole reading of this article. D'oh!
slowmovintarget 9y ago
Best phrase in the article: "the kosher pork chop of the automotive world". For anyone curious about what the early 90s Cadillac Seville STS looked like: https://www.cars.com/research/cadillac-seville-1993/ https://www.cars.com/research/cadillac-seville-1993/
- pc86 9y ago
  > 200-hp, 4.9-liter V-8 No wonder
  - Zak 9y ago
    That wasn't bad for 1993. A Ford Mustang GT had a 235 HP 5.0L V8 for the same year. By way of comparison, the current 2.3L I4 mustang has 310 HP.
    - curlypaul924 9y ago
      Of course the 2.3 is turbocharged, so the displacement figures aren't directly comparable. A closer comparison might be last model year's 3.7L V6 which produced around 300HP.
    - theluketaylor 9y ago
      The 1985 - 1992 BMW M3 2.3L NA I4 had 192 HP in US emissions spec, so it was perfectly possible to get good power out of smaller displacement. Of course the price was low-mid range torque, something big displacement engines have in spades. You have to thrash an s14 to get anything out of it.
tlb 9y ago
In all the cases here, what the customer wanted was available in some other car. Thunderbird owners said they wanted 4 doors. But there were several 4-door fast cars on the market which they didn't buy, so you shouldn't believe them. A common situation in startups is, there are two current products on the market A and B. A has 99% of the market, B has 1%. The amount of feature X (speed, ease of use, scalability, ...) they provide is limited: ---A----B--------------------------------------> X A startup is proposing to make product C. It will be awesome because it provides way more X: ---A----B---------------------------------C----> X But you need to ask, if people really value X, why aren't they already switching from A to B? It happens all the time that startups ask customers, "Do you want a product with more X?" and they say yes. But if they're not already using the product out there with the most X, you shouldn't believe them.
- djrogers 9y ago
  While this can be true, it is often the case that the product with more X is not selling because it is poorly executed, or has made too many compromises to deliver more X. In those cases, a product that delivers more X without the drawbacks has a great chance of succeeding.
  - RyanZAG 9y ago
    Right! As the article points out very clearly, it's not the "more X" that stops people buying the new product. It's that to get more X, those cars gave up Y and Z which were really the most important parts even if customer's didn't convey that to the product research guys. In this case, if the customers do say that more X is a good thing, then having more X probably would lead to more sales for B -- but B is probably deficient in Y and Z. You have to cover the required essentials for the specific product before you can improve on the nice extras. In the case of a small car, customers would say they'd like it if it was bigger with more headroom and more carry space. If you solve this by increasing the actual physical size of the body, your product will fail. If you solve this by laying out the existing body to give more room, your product will succeed. Although even if you succeed in keeping the same amount of weight and body size and improving headroom, your car will still fail if it now looks ugly because of the changes. The key is to consider the entire product holistically and focus on all of the user's needs at the same time. Don't just focus on 'more or less X'.
baxtr 9y ago
To my experience this is not specific to the car industry only. Many large business try to “ask customers what they want”, because “it’s all about the customer”. And while I agree that many large enterprises have ignored customers for all a long time, this new mantra is the right way either. I believe a product needs to be designed deliberately to fulfill certain customer needs/desires. The word design contains the element of making choices on behalf of the customer, seldom by customers. I think has been very successful with this approach, even though some of their tradeoff decisions haven’t been so popular, but needless to say that their products are very successful.
- bluGill 9y ago
  Henry Ford said "If I had asked people what they wanted they would have said a faster horse". Your job is to figure out what the customer need and sell them that. Sometimes the customer knows better than you do so you need to ask. However you have to beware of letting the customer jump to a solution. Figure out what their issue really is and you can revolutionize your industry. Give them what they say they want, and you take your chances.
  - tabtab 9y ago
    To be fair, customers would have been happy with a faster horse.
    - baxtr 9y ago
      Question is which customers are we talking about. Those who could afford a horse would have been happier yes, but I think Ford tapped into a whole new market
      - tabtab 9y ago
        I suspect horses were cheaper than cars back then, but cost is an interesting question, including the cost of hay versus the cost of gas.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
xexers 9y ago
McDonalds has learned this lesson as well. People say they want healthy alternatives... but then the customers don't actually buy the healthy stuff. http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2017/03/22/mcdonald-customers-have-made-it-clear-what-dont-want.html http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2017/03/22/mcdonald-custo...
- bluGill 9y ago
  While true, be careful how far you take this. My understanding (I don't know how to verify it) is that McDonalds knew all long that their salads would never sell well enough to pay for the costs of having them. They however rolled them out nationwide, and advertise. The salad itself isn't worth any of this (even though some of their salads are good and with the right dressing healthy), except that in an office there is often "that one person". By having something "that one person" will eat the rest of the office will have go for a team lunch at McDonalds. Thus the salad caused 4 other people to buy a big mac who otherwise would have eaten elsewhere. When trying to decide what to sell you need to consider these hidden details.
  - uhhhhhhh 9y ago
    There is a second factor. McDonalds is seen as unhealthy fast food relative to other fast foods (subway etc..) To combat this, they introduced a 'healthy' menu that makes people think mcdonalds isn't that unhealthy, they have salads and healthy options after all, so they're more likely to go in the first place. Once they get there, they'll order what they want, which isn't salad in the first place.
    - bluGill 9y ago
      McDonalds introduced their first salads many years before subway became a national chain. Of course current competition is a good reason to keep them, but it clearly can't be cited for the initial decision.
      - bryanlarsen 9y ago
pow_pp_-1_v 9y ago
Customer feedback should be just one of the data points a product planner/owner uses when deciding on what to do in the next version of a product. Sadly, in an effort to become "customer-focused" many people forget this fact.
GVIrish 9y ago
"Don't Ask Customers What They Want" still gets it wrong. It's not that you shouldn't ask customers what they want. It's that you need to intelligently examine customer feedback and decide A. If a problem needs fixing at all B. How to solve that problem or customer desire without doing away with what you got right the first time. Customers often don't know what is practical to achieve or what the tradeoffs are. It is the job of the business to look at those things and find solutions that will make customers as happy or happier with the product/service. The flip side is, some companies go out and design products based on their own desires and assumptions, and sometimes get that wrong too. The latest Macbook Pros are a good example. Yeah the product is slim and pretty, but slim and pretty is not a good thing to optimize for at the detriment of powerful and useful. The new Macbook Pros aren't a flop, but one has to think they would've sold a lot more of them if they sacrificed a bit of thinness for significantly more computing power.
- Balgair 9y ago
  'There are lies, damned lies, and statistics'
- cortesoft 9y ago
  Right, when you ask someone what they want, what they tell you might not be physically possible. We all want a super fast, cheap, small turning radius, small footprint, large interior car.... but some of those requirements are contradictory. If you ask someone what they wish was different about the choice they made, they will likely wish it had some of the features they had to give up to get the features they wanted more.
  - thaeli 9y ago
    Crash safety is the big requirement that's contradictory with those. My daily driver has everything you listed, and good gas mileage too - but it doesn't even have airbags.
- ScottBurson 9y ago
  > slim and pretty is not a good thing to optimize for at the detriment of powerful and useful Well... most of the market seems to think that thin and light is the most important thing. It's just that there is a power-user market segment that has different needs that are not as well served by the new models. [Posting from my 2011 17" MBP, in case you're wondering which side I'm on]
mmsimanga 9y ago
Interesting artile. My opinion, buying a car is a compromise decision. You pick the feature(s) you most value and also factor in how much money you want to spend. If the most appealing feature to you is no longer present in follow up model then the car doesn't have the same appeal. Personally I don't understand why pick up vans are becoming more curvy. I prefer the more square type.
- cr0sh 9y ago
  > Personally I don't understand why pick up vans are becoming more curvy. I prefer the more square type. Probably fuel economy to meet CAFE standards (at least here in America - which probably bleeds over to other markets); same reason why bodies (and eventually frames) going to aluminum...
  - mmsimanga 9y ago
    Ah thanks. I am sticking to the old school models for now. In Africa it is easier anyway to fix the old noncomputerized cars. It costs an arm and a leg to just get a reading to tell you what is wrong with your modern car.
    - devereaux 9y ago
      Maybe... buy a reader? Aliexpress is here to help you.
gxs 9y ago
I'm a product manager at a large, trendy technology company. The answer to this question is boring, because it's the same answer that ends up being the answer for most questions in life, generally. The answer is it depends. Sometimes you listen to customers, sometimes you take a flier on something you think they might like that they haven't answered. The trick is to try a lot of things and get egos out of the way so that if something sticks that isn't necessarily your idea, you can get on board and enthusiastically move it forward. Customers don't always have an idea of new things they want, or the solutions to the problems they need fixed, but they very, very often know exactly what's broken.
- prewett 9y ago
  > Customers don't always have an idea of new things they want, or the solutions to the problems they need fixed, but they very, very often know exactly what's broken. I think this statement is really insightful and gets to the heart of the issue.
jvreagan 9y ago
If you don't listen to your customers, you will fail. If you only listen to your customers, you will fail. -- Jeff Bezos
- acobster 9y ago
  More advice from a guy named Jeff: "Listen to your users, but don't let them tell you what to do." -- Jeff Atwood
johnmarcus 9y ago
idk, the 1967 thunderbird looks like poor execution. They completely changed the look and feel of the car. Customers didn't say I want a larger car, higher off the ground, + 4 seats. They just wanted the 4 seats. You need to make sure you aren't changing the character and utility of a product while adding features, because at that point, your really releasing a new production, not an improved one.
- rootusrootus 9y ago
  That's pretty much what the article says, yes? They took opinions on specific features, implemented them, and inadvertently moved the car into a different niche ... one that had few customers. That's the whole point Lutz is making. Of all the people in the automotive industry, the one I would most like to shake hands with is Maximum Bob.
_greim_ 9y ago
I suspect that customers often really do know what they want, rationally speaking, it's just that purchasing tends to be more impulse and image-driven, divorced from peoples' rational needs. The end result of modern marketing science.
bluedino 9y ago
Bob Lutz was CEO of Chrysler at the time, and they were market testing different designs for the next Dodge Ram pickup truck (1990's). They went with a design that the majority of people didn't prefer, however those who did prefer it, loved it. They figured by going after the most loyal and vocal buyers, they'd have the most success.
- Danihan 9y ago
  I always feel like you should just pursue the most passionate 10% of users who are excited about your product, as that enthusiasm is contagious and will eventually persuade everyone else.
- Zak 9y ago
  I remember when those came out. My mother, who owned a previous generation Dodge Ram hated the look. A decade or so later, she bought a Dodge Dakota with similar styling cues. She didn't hate it enough to turn down the right combination of price and features. This is probably a good approach to most markets that are relatively commoditized (early '90s GM, Ford and Dodge full-size pickup trucks were roughly interchangeable): find some way to make yours stand out that a fraction of users are really passionate about, then double down on it.
  - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
    The 2nd gen Ram design aged terribly compare to Ford or GM's mid/late 90s departure from brick-like trucks. You just don't notice how terribly they aged because they fell apart and rusted out faster
- sliverstorm 9y ago
  That depends a little on your market position. Subaru did the same thing, but that strategy probably won't work as well if you're in the Corolla/Civic part of the market.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
btbuildem 9y ago
I've been working in the UX realm for a while now. I've refined my understanding of this (paradoxical?) problem as such: Listen to the customers, hear out what features they want. Learn how they use the existing features. Observe your competitors, and how their products are used. Understand the general "spirit" underlying the specifics. Design and implement a feature set that best satisfies the spirit, and touches upon some of the specific requests.
quirkot 9y ago
There is a useful distinction that I've commonly seen in writing/editing. It is that people are good at identifying what they don’t like, but are terrible at telling you why or what to do about it. I’ve used this distinction to help tease out feedback from ideation. If you’re in a UX or designer role, you’re a professional creative… Random Joe or Jane on the street, not steeped in technical knowledge, probably have terrible ideas for improving a product, but are intimately familiar with their own frustrations.
patcheudor 9y ago
The real key is that automakers have failed to think creatively when it came to answering customer complaints in implementation. Take the one at the end of the article: "'I wish it was smaller and easier to park,' is probably a common complaint among owners of full-size SUVs. Making an Escalade or Expedition smaller to “please” such a customer would be foolish. But don’t bet against it happening!" Rather than making it physically smaller, automakers could take the approach of using technology to make it feel smaller. That's what Infiniti did with the QX80. It's an absolutely huge SUV, but has cameras under each of the side-view mirrors, one up front, and another in the back. From this, they stitch the images together into a 360 degree view that looks like the vehicle is being watched by a satellite above. Despite it's size, it's easier to park than my small Mercedes roadster which is so low that the front splitter can't clear parking blocks, causing a great deal of anxiety every time I pull into a parking space.
pif 9y ago
Don't ask them what they want; rather, ask them which problem they are suffering from with the currently available products. If you go to a doctor, do you expect him to question you about your ailments or to ask you about how to proceed?
southphillyman 9y ago
I've seen this backfire twice at software firms. One instance involved 10+ contractors being added for a feature that was not yet approved or sold to a client, when the green light was never given those contractors were let go.
purplezooey 9y ago
You know, this is good advice for a lot of enterprises today. We are too focused on giving the customer exactly what they think they want vs. doing the hard work of anticipating what they will want. A lot of PMs are guilty of this. Like spending all your time flying around to meet with customers to chit chat.
PeachPlum 9y ago
"The customer is always right" The irony of this is that phrase is actually the answer to "why isn't anyone buy my stuff?", and the answer is "because they don't think it is good enough value and the customer is always right". Good marketing doesn't ask "what do you want" it asks "what problems do you have". The tale told about Ford is they old "they would have said they wanted faster horses". And that's why Ford didn't have a market research department for a hundred years. This, like many things Ford did (e.g. full vertical integration), was poor a strategy.
Sohcahtoa82 9y ago
I think this article nails it. I drive a Subaru BRZ. The back seats of it are so small as to be damn near useless. I'm only 5'9" and I can't sit in the back because my head hits the rear window. Even my 10 year old niece complains about the lack of leg room. Now, if Subaru does research and finds that people are complaining about the small back seats and so they make them bigger, well they've done it wrong. The proper response would be to steer (no pun intended) those customers to a Legacy, Impreza, or WRX. To make the car larger would destroy what the BRZ was supposed to be: A small, lightweight, inexpensive, economical, nimble sport coupe.
- perardi 9y ago
  Those vestigial back seats are probably there just to make the car cheaper to insure. A 2-seat sports car screams "death machine" to insurance companies. Not a big deal at the Corvette/Cayman prices level, but arguably quite important at the $30,000 USD price range. (caveat: this is largely inherited folk wisdom, and I'd be glad for evidence that insurance, at least nowadays, has enough data to realize what car is likely to end up wrapped around a tree)
curlypaul924 9y ago
A different side of the story: http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2011/09/bob-lutz-myth-11-lutz-hates-car-design-clinics/ http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2011/09/bob-lutz-myth-11-lu... Bob Lutz is known for bragging about the Viper being designed "from the gut", but Michael Karesh points out that Lutz's most successful projects at Chrysler were based on both intuition-based design and extensive market research. In the case of the 2004 Cadillac SRX, the designers successfully argued that poor clinic results could be ignored because the general public couldn’t tell what they wanted in the future, that they lacked “reach.” As we now know, the first-generation SRX flopped. When the 2004 Grand Prix tested worse than the old design, the VLE reacted by telling the senior executive board that he wanted to take a baseball bat to the research group. Apparently the board bought this “argument,” as they approved the design despite the clinic results. The market then vindicated the clinic. Lutz put an end to these practices. Designers’ passions and creativity are essential to creating beautiful cars, and Lutz did what he could to free them. But he also required that every design win its clinic by “a substantial margin” to get approved. Designs with merely decent (or worse) scores were revised, even if this or that gut suggested that the clinic results were wrong, and even if this made the project late and over budget. As is often the case, there isn’t a correct choice between “right brain” guts and “left brain” clinic scores. Successful cars follow from the proper combination of the two.
- csours 9y ago
  Thanks for the link, that's very interesting.
dwyerm 9y ago
I'm just surprised that anyone can have this discussion without mentioning the Pontiac Aztek, which allegedly was designed to tick all the most-requested feature boxes, but ended up being... the Aztek. Or you end up in Zune territory where behind every joke punchline is a quiet voice in the audience saying, "Yeah, but they're actually really good..."
throw7 9y ago
If you've got something good, you want evolution. If you've got something bad, you want revolution.
mikestew 9y ago
I think a quintessential modern version of this is the Scion xB. We have the original style, 2005 version. We love ours, and the current plan is to drive it until the wheels fall off, then go buy new wheels. Great mileage, great dog car, throw a rack on top to carry bikes, and it's zippy enough for what it is. I've hauled a couch in it, because my buddy's Chevy Equinox SUV couldn't. It's basically a small, 35mpg SUV. We checked every box on the options list, and it still came in at $20K If you were to ask me what could be done to improve it, meh, could use a little more power than the 110bhp it puts out now. I mean, if you have to have an answer. And here's the problem the article addresses: yes, I said it could use more power, but not at the expense of mileage efficiency. That's the mistake that Ford and Cadillac made: yes, you did what customers asked, but at the expense of other things that the customer assumed wouldn't change when they answered the question. So what do we get a few years later for a Scion xB? A 50bhp power boost, but at the expense of its awesome fuel efficiency. Wanna know why we bought the xB and not a Honda Element or some Subaru that might be more fitting to our needs? Because the xB gets 35mpg and the Honda and Subie don't. Now that Scion's fuel efficiency is down there with the Honda and Subie, well, why don't I just buy the Forrester I'd rather have were it not for the fuel efficiency? They don't make the xB anymore, for whatever reason, and Toyota's suggested replacement is just another generic crossover that is nothing like the xB is supposedly replaces. I want my lunchbox-on-wheels back. Instead, I guess we'll buy a Subaru when the time comes. So go ahead and customers what they want. Then feel free to go do it, as long as you can do it without screwing up the character of the model. (Which, admittedly, is exactly what the last paragraph of TFA says.)
X86BSD 9y ago
This is exactly what jobs said too. On many occasions. And in different ways. Skate to where the puck will be... people don’t know what they want until you show them... etc.
largote 9y ago
KIA/Hyundai have asked customers what they want for a couple years now and their cars are some of the best in their respective segments.
RickJWag 9y ago
Henry Ford once said "If I had built what people wanted, I'd have built them a faster horse." Smart man, Henry.
dre85 9y ago
Getting manual transmission with all of the other bells and whistles is pretty tough as well in North America. As soon as you want a package that isn't the very basic, in comes the automatic.
donkeyd 9y ago
I just want a car with OTA updates that is affordable (a.k.a. not Tesla). My current car has a bug where the crash mitigation system always gets triggered at a specific spot with white lines on the road. I can easily reproduce the issue, so the car maker should be able to fix it. This is, however, never going to happen. People get angry when a $700 phone isn't being maintained 2,5 years after they're released. But we all accept that a $30,000 won't get updates as soon as you drive out the dealership. (Well, except for maps, which are often paid and at lease half a year behind.)
theluketaylor 9y ago
I listen to a few different screenwriting podcasts and one of the most fascinating parts is the studio note process. Writers submit scripts and then studio execs make notes in the margin and hand it back. In TV this happens in a very compressed time, but with movies this can go on for years. Studio execs are constantly trying to make characters more likeable or artificially raise the stakes of the scene. Some characters should do unlikeable things at times, then it's even more rewarding when they redeem themselves at the end. Or you want a really memorable villain. Some stories just have fairly low stakes. Some of the most successful writers talk about reading "the note behind the note". They take the criticism, but don't make the exact adjustment the exec is looking for. They take it as an indicator the character isn't developed enough yet or the story isn't engrossing enough. If the exec were absorbed by the writing more their mind wouldn't wander enough to add a note. I think that's a good attitude to have when producing anything of great complexity. The fact a customer has a comment doesn't mean you should just implement what they asked for, it means you should really look to understand what they value in the current product and enhance that.
- alexasmyths 9y ago
  That's a great little anecdote, and crazy insight into the creative process, especially how it merges with corporate needs. We love to hate Studio Execs - but think how hard their job is ... they have to justify a $300M budget and make sure it hits specific audiences. Can't be easy. Then again, most big budget films are actually crap, and it's all in CGI anyhow ... so ... Maybe a better study would be the likelihood that the execs notes actually create better returns :)
- chiefofgxbxl 9y ago
  > The fact a customer has a comment doesn't mean you should just implement what they asked for, it means you should really look to understand what they value in the current product and enhance that. I often felt this way with public education, even down to the elementary-school level. When I was in school, specifically high school, I felt appalled that my voice didn't matter. It was always some school board member telling me that they knew best for me. And certainly that is true to some extent; there are some insights adults will have that students just haven't been exposed to yet due to limited life experience. But they didn't even bother to ask us how they could improve school. An elementary school kid can still provide great value. Ask them what they would change, and they may reply, "less homework". You know less/no homework isn't the best solution, but maybe what they're really asking for isn't what you hear on the surface. A plea for less homework could be a plea to make education more exciting, without necessarily changing the dial on homework. Is there a way to keep the same amount of homework, but make it more engaging or meaningful that it feels like less work? I think at times we need to dig deeper on people's feedback, past the surface.
icantdrive55 9y ago
I've been to Automotive school, worked as a mechanic, and even got my vechicle resellers license in the nineties. People don't have a clue to what they need in a vechicle, for the most part. Yes--some need a truck, van, or car. Most are dazzled by cup holders, color, and aesthetics. I've pretty much given up vechicle shopping with relatives. I get too angry. They are about to spend the last 30 grand they saved, and they are worried about how it looks. I'm getting angry just writing this. Consumers need to be told what they need in a vechicle. Number one question should be, "Does this engine last? Is it a proven model?". Number two should be, "what's the transmission? Has it been around awhile. Is it a proven powertrain?" I'll admit these questions are getting harder to find info on, but they are the important questions. I stick with the two Japanese automakers, and that American truck. (I don't mention the names because we are all aware. The truck I would buy because of the resell factor. I don't know if it lasts.) It's too bad, besides a house, the second biggest purchase we buy is filled with so much--what's the word--I guess marketing? At this point in time, vechicle manufacturers should be guaranteeing the engine, and powertrain for at least 200,000 miles. Consumers should be demanding, but we just don't seem to care care? Rant over.
cortic 9y ago
This would be more compelling if it was not set in the backdrop of advertising. Advertising is an entire industry set up to mislead the consumer, with the aim of getting the consumer to make choices that they wouldn't ordinarily have made by their own. This is adequate explanation of why people don't buy things they 'want'.
penglish1 9y ago
Okay, don't ask customers, but do think about it a bit. They don't want yet another smartphone, physically embedded in their car running crappy, insecure, counterintuitive, out of date software. They've already got a smartphone. They already know how to use it's UI. Did you know people drive different cars sometimes? They don't want or need to be able to order Dunkin Donuts from the crappy, insecure, out of date smartphone welded to their dashboard. If they want Dunkin Donuts, they'll order them from the smartphone they already have. Glueing it into the dashboard doesn't make it any safer to operate underway, and if they've got to stop anyway - they'll use their smartphone. And it isn't going to make you many dollars off those Dunkin Donuts referrals. It seems they would like a way to hook up the smartphone they already have to the car speakers, and possibly even a microphone, built-in somewhere near the driver. Ideally multiple ways, since phone makers keep changing the game. Maybe add some physical tactile control buttons, for volume for example. Maybe that attached device needs to be controlled. You might be tempted to put a touchscreen in there. Don't. They've already got a touchscreen, which is unsafe to use while driving. Give them more knobs and buttons they can use by feel. If you don't give them another touchscreen.. they won't use what you didn't give them. If you must put in a screen, make DAMN sure that the software (and hardware!) behind it is as relevant as you think you can manage for the expected lifetime of the car. Like 10 years. How about 20 years? This might seem like an opportunity for planned obsolescence - it isn't. Just do it well, and do it right. If it absolutely must be more than just an audio+mic jack and some buttons then: * make it as secure as you can make it, and can be updated, securely (thumb drives with checksums are good, wireless, not so much). * it is as bug-free as you can make it, and has the fewest possible features you can get away with - on the assumption that your customers will always have a <= 18 month old smartphone in their hands Sure - we can rip out the crap from the factory, and we will, but that is just more waste. Please do it right and maybe save us all some hassle.
mac01021 9y ago
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/09/counterintuitive-world/ http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/09/counterintuiti... > Back during World War II, the RAF lost a lot of planes to German anti-aircraft fire. So they decided to armor them up. But where to put the armor? The obvious answer was to look at planes that returned from missions, count up all the bullet holes in various places, and then put extra armor in the areas that attracted the most fire. > Obvious but wrong. As Hungarian-born mathematician Abraham Wald explained at the time, if a plane makes it back safely even though it has, say, a bunch of bullet holes in its wings, it means that bullet holes in the wings aren’t very dangerous. What you really want to do is armor up the areas that, on average, don’t have any bullet holes. Why? Because planes with bullet holes in those places never made it back. That’s why you don’t see any bullet holes there on the ones that do return. Clever! The relevance of this is left as an excercise for the enterprising reader.

157 points by csours 9y ago

This was interesting to me because it re-iterates the one of the lessons of The Innovators Dilemma: doing what your customers ask can be dangerous.

slowmovintarget 9y ago
Leadership without principles isn't leadership. Doing what your customers ask without balancing that against a strong sense of why your product is a success leads to "kosher pork chops". It betrays a lack of vision.

pascalxus 9y ago

yes, the customer isn't always right. The customer doesn't understand all the tradeoffs. If you make a car bigger, that comes with lots of compromises: less style, less fuel economy, etc.

Slackwise 9y ago
The customer isn't always right, but, the customer also didn't ask for glued-in smartphone batteries, removing the MicroSD slot, or removing the headphone jack.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- bluGill 9y ago
  No, but the customer did ask for cheaper phones. They asked for water proof phones (to infinite depth). They like the way slimmer phones look. All of these conspire to push manufacturers to make the changes you have listed.
  - pessimizer 9y ago
    > They asked for water proof phones (to infinite depth) They definitely didn't. > They like the way slimmer phones look. Do they, or was that marketing that worked? Did they really want thinner phones that were too large to easily fit in a pocket?
    - Zak 9y ago
      > Did they really want thinner phones that were too large to easily fit in a pocket? For the most part, I think they do. Sony has been offering smaller (4.6", usually) phones for years. They're a little thicker than average, have reasonably competitive specs, fairly stock Android, unlockable bootloaders, SD cards and good cameras. Many of them were even waterproof. That's pretty much the feature set a large segment of the tech-savvy community has been asking for. How many of us have one? Meanwhile, phones larger than the current average tend to have strong sales. I think it's mainly driven by people using their phones for an increasing number of tasks they previously would have done on a PC.
      - bsder 9y ago
        Sony isn't a good example because it's phones are outrageously expensive relative to competition.
    - bluGill 9y ago
      They did. Many of my friends have dropped their phones in the tub or toilet over the years and asked for a phone that wouldn't be destroyed when that happens. Note that the point is customer behavior in buying does not match their stated desires. I own a fairly small phone that is waterproof (to 1 meter), but everybody I know thinks I'm weird for having an off brand phone.
    - Crespyl 9y ago
      What the market asked for is "the new phone", which frees up the manufacturers to select whatever (lack of) features makes their lives easy, and the market has demonstrated that they will keep lining up to buy the newest and most expensive models (so long as it doesn't literally explode in their pockets).
- mikestew 9y ago
  Isn’t that back to the Fordian “faster horse”, though? Or perhaps that falls apart with the glued-in battery, and instead it’s “you can have a faster horse, but we have to take the legs off and install wheels”. Or maybe analogies just don’t work, and it’s “you want it thin and waterproof? We can do that, but we’re gluing the battery in.” No, customers didn’t ask for such batteries, but customers did ask for other things that require a permanently installed battery.
  - pessimizer 9y ago
    > Isn’t that back to the Fordian “faster horse”, though? The Fordian "faster horse" doesn't have much merit, though. What customers wanted was a faster cart. That's also exactly what they got. What they wanted out of horses was for them to be easier to store, and cheaper and less labor intensive to maintain. They got bicycles and motorcycles.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
tabtab 9y ago
> The customer doesn't understand all the tradeoffs. Exactly! "Tuning" technology with the right features is an exercise in tradeoff-management. A better approach would be to ask customers to rank features, either against each other, and/or in general. "Driver visibility is more important to me than styling": [strongly agree][somewhat agree][not sure or mixed feelings][somewhat disagree][strongly disagree]. Of course styling is hard to judge without actually seeing what's at stake, but technical features may be easier to compare without visuals. However, doing such surveys right will require customers who are ready and willing to take longer surveys. Perhaps give a general brand gift certificate to participants. There are special ways to construct surveys to ensure responses actually reflect customer opinions (consistency checks).
PeterisP 9y ago
IMHO tradeoffs is the key word here. In all the auto examples, the customers said they liked X, but disliked Y - and then the manufactured fixed Y at some (slight, but still) cost to X, and that wasn't acceptable. The fact itself that they bought that car is an indicator that to them, X is far more valuable than Y - the "missing" feature is a nice to have thing that they'll consider as a differentiator only if the things they liked in the old car are the same or improved; they're not eager to trade off the feature because of which they bought the old car just to get the missing one.

En_gr_Student 9y ago

Steve Jobs would not approve of how auto makers do this, even though the article pretends to quote his style. It actually doesn't and falls prey to the one-at-a-time test problem.

chadgeidel 9y ago
Bob Lutz is almost the Steve Jobs of the auto world. At least in his own mind. :-)

Anechoic 9y ago

That explains the lack of decent infotainment systems these days, perhaps availability of CarPlay/Android Auto will help moderate this view.

giarc 9y ago
I think the fact that car companies are not tech UI/UX design experts is the reason infotainment systems are so terrible these days. They can design a nice interior, but designing a system that looks nice, works well, and can play nice with iOS/Android/Windows/etc isn't their forte.
- cr0sh 9y ago
  Car companies don't usually design these things; heck, most don't design many of the parts of vehicles. Everything is offloaded to third-party car part manufacturers who make things to an OEM spec (and later supply replacement components to the repair and maintenance market) - but in many cases they also supply their own parts, which can be picked and chosen by the manufacturer. In the case of infotainment, the standard unit is DIN size; usually double-DIN for most systems today (hidden behind the plastic dash panels); the parts manufacturer designs and builds a number of components and units for that (along with software and such), and the car manufacturer picks it out of a catalog (if there's something that will work). Otherwise a more customized option is done (and then back to your comment of course). This applies to engines, drivetrains, and virtually every other component of the car, with the exception of the frame and bodywork (interior and exterior) - though even there the part manufacturers lend their hands and expertise to the task, because they have to supply replacement components for those items as well usually. Many of these parts suppliers used to be wholly owned by the auto manufacturers (some still are), but more than a few are independent as well, and supply parts to various manufacturers. Others are more independent, but only supply to a single manufacturer or brand. All this is to say that an automobile manufacturer today doesn't necessarily do everything completely in-house like they used to. It is much more complicated and fragmented today. At least, that is how I understand it.
- GVIrish 9y ago
  I think there are a couple of reasons vehicle infotainment systems are somewhat bad across the board. For starters, cars only get redesigned about every 5 years. That means that most major models that are on the market right now, have only had a full screen interface for 2, maybe 3 generations. So manufacturers can't iterate on what works and what doesn't in terms of their design/development process as quickly as other electronic products. Figuring out how good, is good enough, and what kinds of personnel, suppliers, and processes you need to design an excellent infotainment system is something that naturally took the auto industry a lot longer than say, smartphones or TV's. Because of that, it took a long time for them to even figure out how a car infotainment should fit in with smartphones. And it took a lot of them a long time to figure out that making an interface touchscreen-only for a car is actually an anti-pattern.

lighthazard 9y ago

Reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Homer designs his own car: https://i.imgur.com/2O4f9EO.jpg https://i.imgur.com/2O4f9EO.jpg

strict9 9y ago
Always use example when talking to PMs or UX designers about features. Asking customers what features they want is a quick way to get into trouble. If they really need it, they will let you know.
rconti 9y ago
http://www.thehomercar.com/ http://www.thehomercar.com/
wpietri 9y ago
Absolutely. I use the Homer example all the time when helping people with user interviews. I think it's ok to ask people what they want; it can spark some interesting design notions. But it's important to realize that can have very little to do with what they buy or are happy with. So also ask them why they want it and explore how an expressed desire fits into the context of all their other wants, both spoken and implicit. At the end of the day, people designing something have to be true authors of that thing. We can't outsource our judgment to anything, survey results very much included. User ideas are sources of interesting design hypotheses, but we're still responsible for testing them vigorously and producing a coherent whole.
fullshark 9y ago
Also the Poochie focus group
julienfr112 9y ago
I could not let the memory of this episode slep my mind during the whole reading of this article. D'oh!

slowmovintarget 9y ago

Best phrase in the article: "the kosher pork chop of the automotive world". For anyone curious about what the early 90s Cadillac Seville STS looked like: https://www.cars.com/research/cadillac-seville-1993/ https://www.cars.com/research/cadillac-seville-1993/

pc86 9y ago
> 200-hp, 4.9-liter V-8 No wonder
- Zak 9y ago
  That wasn't bad for 1993. A Ford Mustang GT had a 235 HP 5.0L V8 for the same year. By way of comparison, the current 2.3L I4 mustang has 310 HP.
  - curlypaul924 9y ago
    Of course the 2.3 is turbocharged, so the displacement figures aren't directly comparable. A closer comparison might be last model year's 3.7L V6 which produced around 300HP.
  - theluketaylor 9y ago
    The 1985 - 1992 BMW M3 2.3L NA I4 had 192 HP in US emissions spec, so it was perfectly possible to get good power out of smaller displacement. Of course the price was low-mid range torque, something big displacement engines have in spades. You have to thrash an s14 to get anything out of it.

tlb 9y ago

In all the cases here, what the customer wanted was available in some other car. Thunderbird owners said they wanted 4 doors. But there were several 4-door fast cars on the market which they didn't buy, so you shouldn't believe them. A common situation in startups is, there are two current products on the market A and B. A has 99% of the market, B has 1%. The amount of feature X (speed, ease of use, scalability, ...) they provide is limited: ---A----B--------------------------------------> X A startup is proposing to make product C. It will be awesome because it provides way more X: ---A----B---------------------------------C----> X But you need to ask, if people really value X, why aren't they already switching from A to B? It happens all the time that startups ask customers, "Do you want a product with more X?" and they say yes. But if they're not already using the product out there with the most X, you shouldn't believe them.

djrogers 9y ago
While this can be true, it is often the case that the product with more X is not selling because it is poorly executed, or has made too many compromises to deliver more X. In those cases, a product that delivers more X without the drawbacks has a great chance of succeeding.
- RyanZAG 9y ago
  Right! As the article points out very clearly, it's not the "more X" that stops people buying the new product. It's that to get more X, those cars gave up Y and Z which were really the most important parts even if customer's didn't convey that to the product research guys. In this case, if the customers do say that more X is a good thing, then having more X probably would lead to more sales for B -- but B is probably deficient in Y and Z. You have to cover the required essentials for the specific product before you can improve on the nice extras. In the case of a small car, customers would say they'd like it if it was bigger with more headroom and more carry space. If you solve this by increasing the actual physical size of the body, your product will fail. If you solve this by laying out the existing body to give more room, your product will succeed. Although even if you succeed in keeping the same amount of weight and body size and improving headroom, your car will still fail if it now looks ugly because of the changes. The key is to consider the entire product holistically and focus on all of the user's needs at the same time. Don't just focus on 'more or less X'.

baxtr 9y ago

To my experience this is not specific to the car industry only. Many large business try to “ask customers what they want”, because “it’s all about the customer”. And while I agree that many large enterprises have ignored customers for all a long time, this new mantra is the right way either. I believe a product needs to be designed deliberately to fulfill certain customer needs/desires. The word design contains the element of making choices on behalf of the customer, seldom by customers. I think has been very successful with this approach, even though some of their tradeoff decisions haven’t been so popular, but needless to say that their products are very successful.

bluGill 9y ago
Henry Ford said "If I had asked people what they wanted they would have said a faster horse". Your job is to figure out what the customer need and sell them that. Sometimes the customer knows better than you do so you need to ask. However you have to beware of letting the customer jump to a solution. Figure out what their issue really is and you can revolutionize your industry. Give them what they say they want, and you take your chances.
- tabtab 9y ago
  To be fair, customers would have been happy with a faster horse.
  - baxtr 9y ago
    Question is which customers are we talking about. Those who could afford a horse would have been happier yes, but I think Ford tapped into a whole new market
    - tabtab 9y ago
      I suspect horses were cheaper than cars back then, but cost is an interesting question, including the cost of hay versus the cost of gas.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

xexers 9y ago

McDonalds has learned this lesson as well. People say they want healthy alternatives... but then the customers don't actually buy the healthy stuff. http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2017/03/22/mcdonald-customers-have-made-it-clear-what-dont-want.html http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2017/03/22/mcdonald-custo...

bluGill 9y ago
While true, be careful how far you take this. My understanding (I don't know how to verify it) is that McDonalds knew all long that their salads would never sell well enough to pay for the costs of having them. They however rolled them out nationwide, and advertise. The salad itself isn't worth any of this (even though some of their salads are good and with the right dressing healthy), except that in an office there is often "that one person". By having something "that one person" will eat the rest of the office will have go for a team lunch at McDonalds. Thus the salad caused 4 other people to buy a big mac who otherwise would have eaten elsewhere. When trying to decide what to sell you need to consider these hidden details.
- uhhhhhhh 9y ago
  There is a second factor. McDonalds is seen as unhealthy fast food relative to other fast foods (subway etc..) To combat this, they introduced a 'healthy' menu that makes people think mcdonalds isn't that unhealthy, they have salads and healthy options after all, so they're more likely to go in the first place. Once they get there, they'll order what they want, which isn't salad in the first place.
  - bluGill 9y ago
    McDonalds introduced their first salads many years before subway became a national chain. Of course current competition is a good reason to keep them, but it clearly can't be cited for the initial decision.
    - bryanlarsen 9y ago

pow_pp_-1_v 9y ago

Customer feedback should be just one of the data points a product planner/owner uses when deciding on what to do in the next version of a product. Sadly, in an effort to become "customer-focused" many people forget this fact.

GVIrish 9y ago

"Don't Ask Customers What They Want" still gets it wrong. It's not that you shouldn't ask customers what they want. It's that you need to intelligently examine customer feedback and decide A. If a problem needs fixing at all B. How to solve that problem or customer desire without doing away with what you got right the first time. Customers often don't know what is practical to achieve or what the tradeoffs are. It is the job of the business to look at those things and find solutions that will make customers as happy or happier with the product/service. The flip side is, some companies go out and design products based on their own desires and assumptions, and sometimes get that wrong too. The latest Macbook Pros are a good example. Yeah the product is slim and pretty, but slim and pretty is not a good thing to optimize for at the detriment of powerful and useful. The new Macbook Pros aren't a flop, but one has to think they would've sold a lot more of them if they sacrificed a bit of thinness for significantly more computing power.

Balgair 9y ago
'There are lies, damned lies, and statistics'
cortesoft 9y ago
Right, when you ask someone what they want, what they tell you might not be physically possible. We all want a super fast, cheap, small turning radius, small footprint, large interior car.... but some of those requirements are contradictory. If you ask someone what they wish was different about the choice they made, they will likely wish it had some of the features they had to give up to get the features they wanted more.
- thaeli 9y ago
  Crash safety is the big requirement that's contradictory with those. My daily driver has everything you listed, and good gas mileage too - but it doesn't even have airbags.
ScottBurson 9y ago
> slim and pretty is not a good thing to optimize for at the detriment of powerful and useful Well... most of the market seems to think that thin and light is the most important thing. It's just that there is a power-user market segment that has different needs that are not as well served by the new models. [Posting from my 2011 17" MBP, in case you're wondering which side I'm on]

mmsimanga 9y ago

Interesting artile. My opinion, buying a car is a compromise decision. You pick the feature(s) you most value and also factor in how much money you want to spend. If the most appealing feature to you is no longer present in follow up model then the car doesn't have the same appeal. Personally I don't understand why pick up vans are becoming more curvy. I prefer the more square type.

cr0sh 9y ago
> Personally I don't understand why pick up vans are becoming more curvy. I prefer the more square type. Probably fuel economy to meet CAFE standards (at least here in America - which probably bleeds over to other markets); same reason why bodies (and eventually frames) going to aluminum...
- mmsimanga 9y ago
  Ah thanks. I am sticking to the old school models for now. In Africa it is easier anyway to fix the old noncomputerized cars. It costs an arm and a leg to just get a reading to tell you what is wrong with your modern car.
  - devereaux 9y ago
    Maybe... buy a reader? Aliexpress is here to help you.

gxs 9y ago

I'm a product manager at a large, trendy technology company. The answer to this question is boring, because it's the same answer that ends up being the answer for most questions in life, generally. The answer is it depends. Sometimes you listen to customers, sometimes you take a flier on something you think they might like that they haven't answered. The trick is to try a lot of things and get egos out of the way so that if something sticks that isn't necessarily your idea, you can get on board and enthusiastically move it forward. Customers don't always have an idea of new things they want, or the solutions to the problems they need fixed, but they very, very often know exactly what's broken.

prewett 9y ago
> Customers don't always have an idea of new things they want, or the solutions to the problems they need fixed, but they very, very often know exactly what's broken. I think this statement is really insightful and gets to the heart of the issue.

jvreagan 9y ago

If you don't listen to your customers, you will fail. If you only listen to your customers, you will fail. -- Jeff Bezos

acobster 9y ago
More advice from a guy named Jeff: "Listen to your users, but don't let them tell you what to do." -- Jeff Atwood

johnmarcus 9y ago

idk, the 1967 thunderbird looks like poor execution. They completely changed the look and feel of the car. Customers didn't say I want a larger car, higher off the ground, + 4 seats. They just wanted the 4 seats. You need to make sure you aren't changing the character and utility of a product while adding features, because at that point, your really releasing a new production, not an improved one.

rootusrootus 9y ago
That's pretty much what the article says, yes? They took opinions on specific features, implemented them, and inadvertently moved the car into a different niche ... one that had few customers. That's the whole point Lutz is making. Of all the people in the automotive industry, the one I would most like to shake hands with is Maximum Bob.

_greim_ 9y ago

I suspect that customers often really do know what they want, rationally speaking, it's just that purchasing tends to be more impulse and image-driven, divorced from peoples' rational needs. The end result of modern marketing science.

bluedino 9y ago

Bob Lutz was CEO of Chrysler at the time, and they were market testing different designs for the next Dodge Ram pickup truck (1990's). They went with a design that the majority of people didn't prefer, however those who did prefer it, loved it. They figured by going after the most loyal and vocal buyers, they'd have the most success.

Danihan 9y ago
I always feel like you should just pursue the most passionate 10% of users who are excited about your product, as that enthusiasm is contagious and will eventually persuade everyone else.
Zak 9y ago
I remember when those came out. My mother, who owned a previous generation Dodge Ram hated the look. A decade or so later, she bought a Dodge Dakota with similar styling cues. She didn't hate it enough to turn down the right combination of price and features. This is probably a good approach to most markets that are relatively commoditized (early '90s GM, Ford and Dodge full-size pickup trucks were roughly interchangeable): find some way to make yours stand out that a fraction of users are really passionate about, then double down on it.
- dsfyu404ed 9y ago
  The 2nd gen Ram design aged terribly compare to Ford or GM's mid/late 90s departure from brick-like trucks. You just don't notice how terribly they aged because they fell apart and rusted out faster
sliverstorm 9y ago
That depends a little on your market position. Subaru did the same thing, but that strategy probably won't work as well if you're in the Corolla/Civic part of the market.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

btbuildem 9y ago

I've been working in the UX realm for a while now. I've refined my understanding of this (paradoxical?) problem as such: Listen to the customers, hear out what features they want. Learn how they use the existing features. Observe your competitors, and how their products are used. Understand the general "spirit" underlying the specifics. Design and implement a feature set that best satisfies the spirit, and touches upon some of the specific requests.

quirkot 9y ago

There is a useful distinction that I've commonly seen in writing/editing. It is that people are good at identifying what they don’t like, but are terrible at telling you why or what to do about it. I’ve used this distinction to help tease out feedback from ideation. If you’re in a UX or designer role, you’re a professional creative… Random Joe or Jane on the street, not steeped in technical knowledge, probably have terrible ideas for improving a product, but are intimately familiar with their own frustrations.

patcheudor 9y ago

The real key is that automakers have failed to think creatively when it came to answering customer complaints in implementation. Take the one at the end of the article: "'I wish it was smaller and easier to park,' is probably a common complaint among owners of full-size SUVs. Making an Escalade or Expedition smaller to “please” such a customer would be foolish. But don’t bet against it happening!" Rather than making it physically smaller, automakers could take the approach of using technology to make it feel smaller. That's what Infiniti did with the QX80. It's an absolutely huge SUV, but has cameras under each of the side-view mirrors, one up front, and another in the back. From this, they stitch the images together into a 360 degree view that looks like the vehicle is being watched by a satellite above. Despite it's size, it's easier to park than my small Mercedes roadster which is so low that the front splitter can't clear parking blocks, causing a great deal of anxiety every time I pull into a parking space.

pif 9y ago

Don't ask them what they want; rather, ask them which problem they are suffering from with the currently available products. If you go to a doctor, do you expect him to question you about your ailments or to ask you about how to proceed?

southphillyman 9y ago

I've seen this backfire twice at software firms. One instance involved 10+ contractors being added for a feature that was not yet approved or sold to a client, when the green light was never given those contractors were let go.

purplezooey 9y ago

You know, this is good advice for a lot of enterprises today. We are too focused on giving the customer exactly what they think they want vs. doing the hard work of anticipating what they will want. A lot of PMs are guilty of this. Like spending all your time flying around to meet with customers to chit chat.

PeachPlum 9y ago

"The customer is always right" The irony of this is that phrase is actually the answer to "why isn't anyone buy my stuff?", and the answer is "because they don't think it is good enough value and the customer is always right". Good marketing doesn't ask "what do you want" it asks "what problems do you have". The tale told about Ford is they old "they would have said they wanted faster horses". And that's why Ford didn't have a market research department for a hundred years. This, like many things Ford did (e.g. full vertical integration), was poor a strategy.

Sohcahtoa82 9y ago

I think this article nails it. I drive a Subaru BRZ. The back seats of it are so small as to be damn near useless. I'm only 5'9" and I can't sit in the back because my head hits the rear window. Even my 10 year old niece complains about the lack of leg room. Now, if Subaru does research and finds that people are complaining about the small back seats and so they make them bigger, well they've done it wrong. The proper response would be to steer (no pun intended) those customers to a Legacy, Impreza, or WRX. To make the car larger would destroy what the BRZ was supposed to be: A small, lightweight, inexpensive, economical, nimble sport coupe.

perardi 9y ago
Those vestigial back seats are probably there just to make the car cheaper to insure. A 2-seat sports car screams "death machine" to insurance companies. Not a big deal at the Corvette/Cayman prices level, but arguably quite important at the $30,000 USD price range. (caveat: this is largely inherited folk wisdom, and I'd be glad for evidence that insurance, at least nowadays, has enough data to realize what car is likely to end up wrapped around a tree)

curlypaul924 9y ago

A different side of the story: http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2011/09/bob-lutz-myth-11-lutz-hates-car-design-clinics/ http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2011/09/bob-lutz-myth-11-lu... Bob Lutz is known for bragging about the Viper being designed "from the gut", but Michael Karesh points out that Lutz's most successful projects at Chrysler were based on both intuition-based design and extensive market research. In the case of the 2004 Cadillac SRX, the designers successfully argued that poor clinic results could be ignored because the general public couldn’t tell what they wanted in the future, that they lacked “reach.” As we now know, the first-generation SRX flopped. When the 2004 Grand Prix tested worse than the old design, the VLE reacted by telling the senior executive board that he wanted to take a baseball bat to the research group. Apparently the board bought this “argument,” as they approved the design despite the clinic results. The market then vindicated the clinic. Lutz put an end to these practices. Designers’ passions and creativity are essential to creating beautiful cars, and Lutz did what he could to free them. But he also required that every design win its clinic by “a substantial margin” to get approved. Designs with merely decent (or worse) scores were revised, even if this or that gut suggested that the clinic results were wrong, and even if this made the project late and over budget. As is often the case, there isn’t a correct choice between “right brain” guts and “left brain” clinic scores. Successful cars follow from the proper combination of the two.

csours 9y ago
Thanks for the link, that's very interesting.

dwyerm 9y ago

I'm just surprised that anyone can have this discussion without mentioning the Pontiac Aztek, which allegedly was designed to tick all the most-requested feature boxes, but ended up being... the Aztek. Or you end up in Zune territory where behind every joke punchline is a quiet voice in the audience saying, "Yeah, but they're actually really good..."

throw7 9y ago

If you've got something good, you want evolution. If you've got something bad, you want revolution.

mikestew 9y ago

I think a quintessential modern version of this is the Scion xB. We have the original style, 2005 version. We love ours, and the current plan is to drive it until the wheels fall off, then go buy new wheels. Great mileage, great dog car, throw a rack on top to carry bikes, and it's zippy enough for what it is. I've hauled a couch in it, because my buddy's Chevy Equinox SUV couldn't. It's basically a small, 35mpg SUV. We checked every box on the options list, and it still came in at $20K If you were to ask me what could be done to improve it, meh, could use a little more power than the 110bhp it puts out now. I mean, if you have to have an answer. And here's the problem the article addresses: yes, I said it could use more power, but not at the expense of mileage efficiency. That's the mistake that Ford and Cadillac made: yes, you did what customers asked, but at the expense of other things that the customer assumed wouldn't change when they answered the question. So what do we get a few years later for a Scion xB? A 50bhp power boost, but at the expense of its awesome fuel efficiency. Wanna know why we bought the xB and not a Honda Element or some Subaru that might be more fitting to our needs? Because the xB gets 35mpg and the Honda and Subie don't. Now that Scion's fuel efficiency is down there with the Honda and Subie, well, why don't I just buy the Forrester I'd rather have were it not for the fuel efficiency? They don't make the xB anymore, for whatever reason, and Toyota's suggested replacement is just another generic crossover that is nothing like the xB is supposedly replaces. I want my lunchbox-on-wheels back. Instead, I guess we'll buy a Subaru when the time comes. So go ahead and customers what they want. Then feel free to go do it, as long as you can do it without screwing up the character of the model. (Which, admittedly, is exactly what the last paragraph of TFA says.)

X86BSD 9y ago

This is exactly what jobs said too. On many occasions. And in different ways. Skate to where the puck will be... people don’t know what they want until you show them... etc.

largote 9y ago

KIA/Hyundai have asked customers what they want for a couple years now and their cars are some of the best in their respective segments.

RickJWag 9y ago

Henry Ford once said "If I had built what people wanted, I'd have built them a faster horse." Smart man, Henry.

dre85 9y ago

Getting manual transmission with all of the other bells and whistles is pretty tough as well in North America. As soon as you want a package that isn't the very basic, in comes the automatic.

donkeyd 9y ago

I just want a car with OTA updates that is affordable (a.k.a. not Tesla). My current car has a bug where the crash mitigation system always gets triggered at a specific spot with white lines on the road. I can easily reproduce the issue, so the car maker should be able to fix it. This is, however, never going to happen. People get angry when a $700 phone isn't being maintained 2,5 years after they're released. But we all accept that a $30,000 won't get updates as soon as you drive out the dealership. (Well, except for maps, which are often paid and at lease half a year behind.)

theluketaylor 9y ago

I listen to a few different screenwriting podcasts and one of the most fascinating parts is the studio note process. Writers submit scripts and then studio execs make notes in the margin and hand it back. In TV this happens in a very compressed time, but with movies this can go on for years. Studio execs are constantly trying to make characters more likeable or artificially raise the stakes of the scene. Some characters should do unlikeable things at times, then it's even more rewarding when they redeem themselves at the end. Or you want a really memorable villain. Some stories just have fairly low stakes. Some of the most successful writers talk about reading "the note behind the note". They take the criticism, but don't make the exact adjustment the exec is looking for. They take it as an indicator the character isn't developed enough yet or the story isn't engrossing enough. If the exec were absorbed by the writing more their mind wouldn't wander enough to add a note. I think that's a good attitude to have when producing anything of great complexity. The fact a customer has a comment doesn't mean you should just implement what they asked for, it means you should really look to understand what they value in the current product and enhance that.

alexasmyths 9y ago
That's a great little anecdote, and crazy insight into the creative process, especially how it merges with corporate needs. We love to hate Studio Execs - but think how hard their job is ... they have to justify a $300M budget and make sure it hits specific audiences. Can't be easy. Then again, most big budget films are actually crap, and it's all in CGI anyhow ... so ... Maybe a better study would be the likelihood that the execs notes actually create better returns :)
chiefofgxbxl 9y ago
> The fact a customer has a comment doesn't mean you should just implement what they asked for, it means you should really look to understand what they value in the current product and enhance that. I often felt this way with public education, even down to the elementary-school level. When I was in school, specifically high school, I felt appalled that my voice didn't matter. It was always some school board member telling me that they knew best for me. And certainly that is true to some extent; there are some insights adults will have that students just haven't been exposed to yet due to limited life experience. But they didn't even bother to ask us how they could improve school. An elementary school kid can still provide great value. Ask them what they would change, and they may reply, "less homework". You know less/no homework isn't the best solution, but maybe what they're really asking for isn't what you hear on the surface. A plea for less homework could be a plea to make education more exciting, without necessarily changing the dial on homework. Is there a way to keep the same amount of homework, but make it more engaging or meaningful that it feels like less work? I think at times we need to dig deeper on people's feedback, past the surface.

icantdrive55 9y ago

I've been to Automotive school, worked as a mechanic, and even got my vechicle resellers license in the nineties. People don't have a clue to what they need in a vechicle, for the most part. Yes--some need a truck, van, or car. Most are dazzled by cup holders, color, and aesthetics. I've pretty much given up vechicle shopping with relatives. I get too angry. They are about to spend the last 30 grand they saved, and they are worried about how it looks. I'm getting angry just writing this. Consumers need to be told what they need in a vechicle. Number one question should be, "Does this engine last? Is it a proven model?". Number two should be, "what's the transmission? Has it been around awhile. Is it a proven powertrain?" I'll admit these questions are getting harder to find info on, but they are the important questions. I stick with the two Japanese automakers, and that American truck. (I don't mention the names because we are all aware. The truck I would buy because of the resell factor. I don't know if it lasts.) It's too bad, besides a house, the second biggest purchase we buy is filled with so much--what's the word--I guess marketing? At this point in time, vechicle manufacturers should be guaranteeing the engine, and powertrain for at least 200,000 miles. Consumers should be demanding, but we just don't seem to care care? Rant over.

cortic 9y ago

This would be more compelling if it was not set in the backdrop of advertising. Advertising is an entire industry set up to mislead the consumer, with the aim of getting the consumer to make choices that they wouldn't ordinarily have made by their own. This is adequate explanation of why people don't buy things they 'want'.

penglish1 9y ago

Okay, don't ask customers, but do think about it a bit. They don't want yet another smartphone, physically embedded in their car running crappy, insecure, counterintuitive, out of date software. They've already got a smartphone. They already know how to use it's UI. Did you know people drive different cars sometimes? They don't want or need to be able to order Dunkin Donuts from the crappy, insecure, out of date smartphone welded to their dashboard. If they want Dunkin Donuts, they'll order them from the smartphone they already have. Glueing it into the dashboard doesn't make it any safer to operate underway, and if they've got to stop anyway - they'll use their smartphone. And it isn't going to make you many dollars off those Dunkin Donuts referrals. It seems they would like a way to hook up the smartphone they already have to the car speakers, and possibly even a microphone, built-in somewhere near the driver. Ideally multiple ways, since phone makers keep changing the game. Maybe add some physical tactile control buttons, for volume for example. Maybe that attached device needs to be controlled. You might be tempted to put a touchscreen in there. Don't. They've already got a touchscreen, which is unsafe to use while driving. Give them more knobs and buttons they can use by feel. If you don't give them another touchscreen.. they won't use what you didn't give them. If you must put in a screen, make DAMN sure that the software (and hardware!) behind it is as relevant as you think you can manage for the expected lifetime of the car. Like 10 years. How about 20 years? This might seem like an opportunity for planned obsolescence - it isn't. Just do it well, and do it right. If it absolutely must be more than just an audio+mic jack and some buttons then: * make it as secure as you can make it, and can be updated, securely (thumb drives with checksums are good, wireless, not so much). * it is as bug-free as you can make it, and has the fewest possible features you can get away with - on the assumption that your customers will always have a <= 18 month old smartphone in their hands Sure - we can rip out the crap from the factory, and we will, but that is just more waste. Please do it right and maybe save us all some hassle.

mac01021 9y ago

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/09/counterintuitive-world/ http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/09/counterintuiti... > Back during World War II, the RAF lost a lot of planes to German anti-aircraft fire. So they decided to armor them up. But where to put the armor? The obvious answer was to look at planes that returned from missions, count up all the bullet holes in various places, and then put extra armor in the areas that attracted the most fire. > Obvious but wrong. As Hungarian-born mathematician Abraham Wald explained at the time, if a plane makes it back safely even though it has, say, a bunch of bullet holes in its wings, it means that bullet holes in the wings aren’t very dangerous. What you really want to do is armor up the areas that, on average, don’t have any bullet holes. Why? Because planes with bullet holes in those places never made it back. That’s why you don’t see any bullet holes there on the ones that do return. Clever! The relevance of this is left as an excercise for the enterprising reader.