4 ms·
This was not what I expected. I thought it would be about toxic customers. It's actually about a set of very good customers who happen to like products that a
by te_platt 12y ago
This was not what I expected. I thought it would be about toxic customers. It's actually about a set of very good customers who happen to like products that are doomed to failure. The idea is that some people have a distinct out of the mainstream taste. Kind of like when I tell my daughter I like her outfit so of course she won't wear it again.
- brudgers 12y agoWith a focus on consumer goods rather than services, toxic customers is not as relevant a concern in the context of the article as it would be say for a consulting business. Likewise repeat customers are more of an unambiguous signal for a service business.
- 001sky 12y agoToxic customers are a fault of a business model--not the customers. eg. some biz models are not robust enough to be "indifferent" to the customer--they have exteranalities that are not compensated for--customer support, say. Commodity products typically lack such externalities, and/or are compensated for by other tactics at the industry-structure level.
- judk 12y agoIt's really about a basic misunderstandingof statistics. Some people prefer to buy novel products. Most novel products fail to get popular. Therefore, there is a correlation. There was no finding that such customer prefer unpopular new products over popular ones.
- PeterisP 12y agoI interpret the article as a finding that there exists some "bland/mainstream vs novel/unique" scale that actually is objective - i.e., corresponds to measurable and consistent preferences for groups of customers. There actually was a finding that the analyzed customers historically preferred novel-flavor products over mainstream ones. This means, that if those customers really like your product, then that's some evidence that it may fall into the same group as the other niche products