Jeff Jarvis says let your customers do all the work

I'm at the BlogOn conference today in NYC and there was one panel this morning that got me thinking. Jeff Jarvis was on it with a guy from AOL and another guy from another company.

Jarvis' position is that companies should go out and find all the communities that exist around their product and let the influencers in that community service your customers, design your products, and so on. I'm not making this up by the way, that's what he said.

This got me thinking about brands, companies, and what is the nature of business as a business. Certain companies are in the business of selling pleasure, an example of this is luxury goods. There is nobody that can honestly say that a $10,000 Hermes handbag is in any meaningful way better than a $300 handbag, but try telling that to a woman who has one. Simply put, Hermes is in the business of selling pleasure, not handbags.

Other companies are in the business of selling utility, and for the purposes of this post I am not going to deal with them. I suppose the reason I am avoiding the utility segment is that I don't get emotional about utility. It's hard to build community around purely utilitarian products.

Apple is likewise in the business of selling fashion/pleasure, it just happens that fashion is in the form of laptops and iPods. But you will recall back when the iPod was first released that the reaction was not overwhelmingly positive, either from the predicted "early adopter" community or from the media/analysts. Therefore, following Jarvis' logic, if Apple had let their users design the iPod, well we probably would have had a very different iPod.

Ultimately, companies that are selling fashion and pleasure are obligated to be the tip of the spear because that's what their customers expect. If Apple were to not push the envelope in leading it's own design, in other words let their customers do it for them, they would surely crash. If Hermes were to listen to their customers and produce to meet demand, their handbags would not be so coveted. These companies thrive because they don't listen to their customers.

As a means of supporting their customers every consumer and b2b company should embrace their customer and stakeholder communities. However, doing that does not relieve them of the obligation of hosting their own support forums, call centers, and so on. As I have written before, companies should have processes for integrating blog feedback and so on, blah, blah, blah. If blogs are an early warning system, then great.

The one thing that I'm really getting tired of is all this kumbiyah crap about "markets are conversations" and "companies have to be honest" and "everything needs to be transparent". Why would I disagree with any of this? I wouldn't but none of these things are actionable strategies for improving a brands value in the marketplace.

The guy from AOL on the panel is right that companies don't control the conversation  but he's mistaken to suggest that controlling the conversation is analogous to controlling your brand. If he really did believe that the market defines brands, then why the hell is AOL running advertisements every 3 minutes talking about how the internet isn't safe unless you are on AOL.

UPDATE: before anyone jumps on me for misinterpreting what Jarvis said, let me say that my argument is that companies need to take responsibility for things like product design, customer serivce, and so on, and if they do things like bring more users into that process then that's great. But having communities of users in no way relieves a company of doing the fundamental things that we expect of companies. Furthermore, just because you have communities of users it doesn't mean that all the voices are either right or equal. Customers can be wrong and it's up to the company to make the decision about what voices to listen to with the end game being that of increasing the value of their brand.

Comments

[Jeff Jarvis]

Well then why the hell do companies spend untold fortunes on focus groups, surveys, market research, product testing, and all that? To hear what customers want. When customer go to the effort of tellling you, why not listen? If it's easier for them to tell you, why not help them? If they have good ideas, why not embrace them? If they show you what's wrong with your ideas, why not learn? It's that simple. If you think that's crap, fine. I think that's smart business.

[jeff]

focus groups are used to test concepts, validate ideas/products, and refine products. Listening to what customers want and turning over your product design to them are two entirely different ideas in my book. Furthermore, good - great - companies are always careful to not get locked into a reactive product design cycle where whatever is front-and-center in the customers head is what you build, it takes an experienced ear to discern between what customers say they want and what they ulimately want. If you think that's crap, fine. I think that's smart product management.

[peter]

As far as I know, focus groups are selected to represent a certain customer segment. (whether they succeed in it or not, is another question...) The customers who go out and tells you what they want is a rather narrow segment as I see. Of course you can build a business on that - a new business. But if you are a corporate with a large customer base (and a large cost base that's also called your employees, who you're also kinda' responsible for) you need more than just the opinion of the pro-active few.

[jeff]

Peter,
In Moore's classic Crossing the Chasm vernacular, this trap is specifically referenced to as locking into the early adopter segment and being unable to get out.

[laurence haughton]

I don't mean to jump down your throat but have you looked into the theory of utility?

"To begin with, Jeremy Bentham's philosophy reflects what he calls at different times 'the greatest happiness principle' or 'the principle of utility'--a term which he borrows from Hume. He was not referring to just the usefulness of things or actions, but to the extent to which these things or actions promote the general happiness.

Bentham writes, "By the principle of utility is meant that principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency which it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question: or, what is the same thing in other words, to promote or to oppose that happiness."

I think "utility" in economic theory includes room for Hermes handbags.

[jeff]

Thanks Laurence,
I think Bentham is really extending what the Greeks (Epicurus? no, I think it was Aristotle) defined as the primary good of life, the pursuit of happiness, a life well lived as opposed to a simple emotional response.

Obviously, I used Hermes to underscore the point, but I do think that Apple is fair game as well as a company selling fashion/pleasure.

[laurence haughton]

I think you may be right about Epicurus.

Once a businessperson understands "utility" and "expected utility" a lot of irrational economic behavior becomes quite rational.

Or as a jeweler once said to me, "What I sell isn't diamonds. It's is a way back into the bedroom."

[jeff]

LOL.

So true... the utility part as well :)

[이유나]

화상게임쇼!

이쁜여성과 몸캠하며 즐기는게임!

http://oh.ah.to/

http://oh.ah.to/

http://oh.ah.to/

다수의 이쁜여성과 자유로운 즉석 번개팅가능!

뜨거운채팅! ...매일매일...쿨하게 즐겨여^^^^

삭+제+번+호:sesii1

>

[cinderellagirl]

Just thought i would point out that you spelled kumbaya wrong. You need a pocket dictionary, dammit.

In the end, it is really just this simple:

Customers are careless and lazy and generally speaking, categorically wrong -- I blame them. But it is a company's "job" to be a constitute of coveted desire and to define happiness....

not to listen to what customers want,
not to push the principles of utility,
not to tout conversations, or brands, or fairness, or transparency.

Think Tryptamine. And Alice in Wonderland.

[cinderellagirl]

P.S. The rest of it is all Hoo-Hah.