I see now: you're interpreting the article as saying wom is a litmus test of how good your product is: if wom isn't working, your product is rubbish, and you're

I see now: you're interpreting the article as saying wom is a litmus test of how good your product is: if wom isn't working, your product is rubbish, and you're better improve it. You're saying that the ease of wom varies with industry, so that as a metric, it's not a universal indicator of the quality of your product. I think you mean "discouraging", in that one thinks one's product isn't good enough. But maybe you mean "discouraging" in that one thinks one's marketing isn't working. I interpret it a strategy: make your product so extraordinary that wom comes into play. Wom is so great, that it's worth the effort, even in an industry where wom is harder. But I see your point: maybe the wom-bar is so high, that you're better off just marketing in traditional ways. I still think wom is great, and worth trying for, but I acknowledge it's a tradeoff, not a simple "if no wom, do nothing but improve your product".