golden_lucky: Iâm wondering what the difference is between the argument that customers might need a car instead of a fast horse and the argument that customers might want [Not a drill, a hole.
-
golden_lucky: Some argue that customers need the experience of buying a book, not the information, and I think many publishers, or planners, have implicitly adopted this argument. I think there are a lot of publishers or planners who have implicitly adopted this argument.
-
golden_lucky: No matter how hard you try to communicate, some people who buy a fast horse will wish they had bought an automobile, and some people who buy an automobile Some of those who buy a fast horse will wish they had bought a car, and some of those who buy a car will wish they had bought a fast horse. As valuable as it is to make the effort to determine in advance whether the customer wants a fast horse or an automobile, I still think itâs a matter of consequence.
AntiBayesian: Itâs no different everywhere, for example in my tweets. Iâm talking about clarifying whether you want a fast horse because you want to travel fast (if itâs fast, it doesnât have to be a horse) or because you want to win a riding race (if itâs faster than a horse but not a horse, it doesnât matter).
-
AntiBayesian: The problem here is that if clients and agents assume that the only way to travel fast is by horse, then the only way is to breed horses. On the other hand, we know even jet planes, so we can think of something faster than horses, but can we come up with something that doesnât exist when horses are currently the best?
golden_lucky: The former says âyou canât innovate by implementing customersâ requests literallyâ and the latter says âcustomers donât know what they really need, so you have to make suggestionsâ, which is a completely different context. The latter is âcustomers donât know what they really need, so you have to make suggestionsâ, which is a completely different context. twitter.com/golden_lucky/sâŚ
-
AntiBayesian: What you say is quite different from my interpretation (I donât want to argue that âyour interpretation is wrong!â). ), but I think it is a good allegory that can be interpreted in many ways.
-
My interpretation is that the mountain tops in the two stories are the same, but the routes are different.
I donât really see the golden_lucky distinction either, and I sympathize with AntiBayesianâs âthe mountain tops of the two stories are the sameâ, but to put it in my own wordsâŚ
Both of them pay attention to âthingsâ like âholesâ and âfast horses,â but thatâs not much different than paying attention to a product, a thing.
- The phrases What the customer really needed and What you want are misleading, what really matters is not what the customer wants.
Iâm talking about clarifying whether the reason you want a fast horse is to move fast (if itâs fast, it doesnât have to be a horse) or to win a riding race (if itâs faster than a horse but not a horse, it doesnât matter). Neither âI want to move fastâ nor âI want to win racesâ are things. The thought of implicitly limiting the term to âthingsâ is narrow-mindedness.
relevance
This page is auto-translated from /nishio/犴ă¨éă錏 using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. Iâm very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.