Marketing and Selling Disruptive Products to Mainstream Customers
Now in it’s 3rd edition, Geoffrey Moore’s classic business book, Crossing the Chasm is one of the most quoted books in the history of technology product management. Moore was one of the first to identify the difference between the behaviors of people inventing technology, Innovators, those willing to experiment with early versions of new technology, Early Adopters, those in the majority who are less willing to be on the “bleeding edge” of technology adoption, the Early Majority and Late Majority groups, and those who join the parade as it’s about to end, Laggards. His description of the buying behaviors and the product needs necessary to meet the needs of each group has guided thousands of companies as they build products and solutions for new markets.
Moore’s third edition includes updated examples of successes and failures, ideas for success in the digital world, and other new ideas. This edition includes two appendices, one that provides insight into another of Moore’s books, Inside the Tornado. The second appendix adds information on research that expands the technology adoption models to include high-tech consumer markets.
Everyone working in or with companies providing technology products to market should have an understanding of Moore’s Technology Adoption Life Cycle and would be well served by reading this latest edition.
How has the Technology Adoption Life Cycle helped you bring your products to market? Let us know in the comments below.
Politicians love to talk about creating jobs and bringing jobs back to areas with high unemployment. They love to point fingers at previous politicians and claim the policies of the past caused jobs to leave and once corrected these jobs will return quickly.
Most recently the discussions have focused on coal mining and manufacturing where history does not line up with the promises.
Coal mining jobs from 1985 to 2016 fell from over 178,000 to 50,000 primarily due to improved mining productivity, not increased regulations.
Manufacturing productivity changes have delivered a similar change across many more jobs than mining.
Manufacturing output increases since 2010 far exceeded job creation.
Government officials must stop ignoring basic economics and glossing over the simple fact that many more jobs are eliminated due to productivity increases through automation, process improvement and higher skilled workers than ever move from town to town or country to country. And even when jobs do go to low wage countries only to find those wages move toward parity with onshore production, the changes are in lower labor costs regardless of where the production resides.
It’s time to start talking about how best to support workers and stop funding corporations to create jobs in industries that no longer need workers in the numbers they once did. This cycle of job replacing automation is only going to happen faster and faster, leaving fewer and fewer high paying jobs for low-skilled labor while high-skilled, high paying jobs go unfilled.
Governments and corporations are working together to balance this equation, but not enough effort is going into retraining available labor in areas where the skills no longer match the available work. Just in time skill development through targeted apprenticeship programs is one of several tools available to help workers prepare for the jobs that companies are looking to fill.
The real trouble is that American aviation is not competitive. Consolidation has meant there are fewer big carriers, each with higher market share. That has allowed them to care little for the flyers they should be nurturing. At many airports, a single carrier has a near monopoly. (As our recent leader on the subject noted, at 40 of America’s 100 biggest hubs, one airline accounts for more than half of capacity.) What is more, competitors from abroad are barred from disrupting the cosy status quo because of strict foreign ownership rules. That would be a far better thing for Congress to focus on. Imagine how long United and American would last in their current, disdainful guise if Emirates, Singapore Airlines or even Ryanair were allowed to compete against them for a share of the world’s biggest domestic aviation market.
WHEN politicians feel they must summon industry bosses and implore them to treat customers better, it is a sure sign that the market is not working as it should. On May 2nd, a Congressional committee pleaded with airline bosses to improve service or, by implication, face legislation to force […]
Click here to view original web page at www.economist.com
DECADES ago travelling by air in America was a glamorous affair. Today it signals delays, discomfort, extra charges and the threat of violence. Air fares are higher per seat mile in America than in Europe. When costs fall, consumers in America fail to enjoy the benefits. Airlines in North America posted a profit of $22.40 per passenger last year; in Europe the figure was $7.84. Standards of service are also worse. Only one operator based in America can be found in the world’s 30 best carriers, as rated by Skytrax, an aviation website, compared with nine from Europe.
This happy combination of low fares and reasonable service has a simple explanation: competition. American policymakers have presided over a wave of mergers in the past few years, while in Europe, where the top four carriers have around 45% of the market, policymakers have got three things right.
First, European regulators have tried harder to preserve competition between existing carriers.
Second, Europe has made it easier for foreigners to boost competition by entering new markets.
Third, Europe has also encouraged competition between different airports and their main operators. Breaking up the ownership of London’s biggest three airports has saved passengers £420m ($628m) in fares since 2009, according to ICF International, a consultancy.
America, it’s time for a change.
Click here to view original web page at www.economist.com