golden_lucky: I’m 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 it’s a matter of consequence.

AntiBayesian: It’s no different everywhere, for example in my tweets. I’m talking about clarifying whether you want a fast horse because you want to travel fast (if it’s fast, it doesn’t have to be a horse) or because you want to win a riding race (if it’s faster than a horse but not a horse, it doesn’t 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 doesn’t exist when horses are currently the best?

golden_lucky: The former says “you can’t innovate by implementing customers’ requests literally” and the latter says “customers don’t know what they really need, so you have to make suggestions”, which is a completely different context. The latter is “customers don’t know what they really need, so you have to make suggestions”, which is a completely different context. twitter.com/golden_lucky/s…

  • AntiBayesian: What you say is quite different from my interpretation (I don’t want to argue that “your interpretation is wrong!”). ), 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 don’t really see the golden_lucky distinction either, and I sympathize with AntiBayesian’s “the mountain tops of the two stories are the same”, but to put it in my own words…

Both of them pay attention to “things” like “holes” and “fast horses,” but that’s not much different than paying attention to a product, a thing.

I’m talking about clarifying whether the reason you want a fast horse is to move fast (if it’s fast, it doesn’t have to be a horse) or to win a riding race (if it’s faster than a horse but not a horse, it doesn’t matter). Neither “I want to move fast” nor “I want to win races” are things. The thought of implicitly limiting the term to “things” is narrow-mindedness.

relevance


This page is auto-translated from /nishio/穴と速い馬 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. I’m very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.