Trade-Off: Why Some Things Catch On, and Others Don't

by Kevin Maney

Book Overview

A Fresh and Important New Way to Understand Why We BuyWhy did the RAZR ultimately ruin Motorola? Why does Wal-Mart dominate rural and suburban areas but falter in large cities? Why did Starbucks... This description may be from another edition of this product.

• Format: Hardcover
• Language: English
• ISBN: 038552594X
• ISBN13: 9780385525947
• Release Date: September 2009
• Publisher: Broadway Books
• Length: 217 Pages
• Weight: 0.85 lbs.
• Dimensions: 0.9" x 5.9" x 8.5"

Customer Reviews

Insightful comparison of quality versus convenience

Technology journalist Kevin Maney coined the term "fidelity swap" to describe the choice consumers make between "convenience" and "fidelity," which is the quality of the experience that a product or service provides. People make such trade-offs many times every day. To illustrate, consider whether you would rather watch the Yankees play live at Yankee Stadium or see the game from the comfort of your home? Would you rather enjoy the experience of browsing the aisles of your local bookstore or have the convenience of ordering books online? Products or services that lie on either extreme of the fidelity versus convenience continuum are most successful, while those that offer neither high quality nor extreme ease of use fall into the "fidelity belly," where they are doomed to mediocrity unless they can swim out. In his engaging book, Maney expertly uses numerous colorful case studies to explain the fidelity swap paradigm and lucidly demonstrates how to adopt it as a corporate strategy. getAbstract recommends his work to businesspeople contemplating issues of price versus prestige, availability versus exclusivity, and what works in the market, what doesn't and why.

Keeping It Simple

In 1985, some marketing genius at Coca Cola thought it would be a great idea to change the formula we all grew to know and love, and replace it with something that tasted even worse than RC Cola. The public, of course, was outraged, so the brain trust of Coke wisely chose to (quickly) bring back the old formula; hence, the birth of "Coca Cola Classic". Brilliant. In retrospect, the debacle over Coke's decision to introduce a "new & improved" formula seems to have been a clever ploy to wake us up from our complacency; we took for granted we'd always have our Coke, but after having it suddenly taken away from us, we were helpless; except of course, we switched to Pepsi; after all, it tasted better than that new stuff Coke was pawning off. In a fascinating study by Kevin Maney, we find out why some marketing ploys work & why some, like Wal-Mart's venture into urban areas, flopped. What Maney observes is a trade-off a consumer encounters; in the process, the simple choice is made to either accept or deny the new choice. Specifically, are the choices categorized "high in fidelity" (such as going to a rock concert, which is usually an event of total chaos) or "high in convenience" (going into a "convenience" store?). The trade offs are usually clear, in hindsight; success or failure of a marketing initiative seems so obvious, after the fact. Sometimes, things work; other times, they're disasters, and a few marketing gurus are given their walking papers, while investors get whacked, at least in the short term. The conclusion seems to be, stick to what you do best. If you're a low cost provider, don't try to get too fancy. Consumers aren't going for it; they've made up their minds what they like about your service, so don't try to second guess the tidal wave of popular sentiment. For some reason, we live in an age where we're given way too many options for stuff that is so mundane; but there they are; 47 different varieties of detergent. None of them are really any better; but we've got the choices, anyway. Personally, the whole Coca Cola debacle soured me on ever buying their product again. Keep it simple, stupid; just keep it simple. Don't change things that don't need to be changed. Re-inventing the wheel is not a good idea.

Gladwellian Stickiness

In Kevin Maney's new book, "Trade Off - Why Some Things Catch On and Others Don't", we are treated to a simple world set apart from the latest theories on the complexity of our economic systems. Most intellectuals writing on the subject today will tell you how truly difficult it is to understand market pressures and the dynamics that determine what happens in our commercial market place. Even Malcolm Gladwell, who has given us the "The Tipping Point", which allows us to visualize how a product or service with sufficient critical mass, the right "stickiness", and the right combination of salesmen, connectors, and mavens a product might tip, catch-on as Maney would say, didn't quite give us something practical to use when making decisions. Maney has given us something practical to use. He has given us a lens, as he calls it, a mirror as I would call it, to understand the very basics of human psychology when it comes to seeking out products and services. It's a mirror because the markets are a reflection of ourselves. First, since we are sensory beings we like to be fully engaged in a high fidelity environment. In essence we like the high bandwidth experience of being there, live and in concert. Second, if we can't be there in person, then we are extremely lazy. These are the two extremes. We pay for things that simulate our senses, or we prefer the habit of convenience where we don't have to use our senses at all. We are willing to pay for the convenience as well. Gladwell was never able to definitively explain "stickiness", that unknown phenomenon that produces an attraction to a product or service. Maney has given us the essence of the Gladwellian "stickiness". It is that characteristic about a product or service that compels us to either love it deeply or require it as a necessity. The two extremes of that which we love, those high fidelity, high quality experiences that move our every sense which we are willing to sacrifice and pay top dollar for, or that which we need, to use, consume, and connect with everyday by either force of habit or necessity that must be simple, convenient, and cheap. The markets continuously trade between fidelity and convenience because every consumer makes the same swap in their daily lives. What can be more simple than that? With all that has been written about the complexities of the economy and drivers of our markets Maney has given us something simply, intuitive, and even more important, fundamentally true. I have used his simple lens to view my own experiences and a host of other examples beyond what he has included in his book. I have not found a single instance where I would argue his fidelity swap lens does not hold up. Five stars for this very useful concept.

"If you can't be the best,...then be the most convenient."

Compromises are inevitable and usually involve a trade-off in one form or another. In the business world, Kevin Maney suggests that there is an ever-present tension between quality and convenience, more specifically between what he calls "high-fidelity" and "high-convenience." He provides in this volume what Jim Collins suggests in the Foreword, a "strategic lens" that "does not in itself give an answer about what you should do, and not do. Rather - and much better - it forces you to engage in a powerful question, from which you derive your own insight and make your own decisions...The power of a strategic concept [such as the one Maney shares] lies first and foremost in giving us a lens and a stimulus for hard thinking and hard choices. The critical question is not its universal truth, but its usefulness. And in this, I think Kevin Maney has extracted a very useful framework." Maney cites the CEO of Netflix, Reed Hastings, as an example of a business leader who obviously did some hard thinking before making a critically important decision. During a program at a conference that Maney attended, "Hastings said that his strategic decisions at Netflix were driven by one simple core principle: People are willing to trade the quality of an experience for the convenience of getting it, and vice versa." It occurred Maney that Hastings' core concept "was a terrific lens for viewing the way the world works. It can be an invaluable insight when dreaming up new products, when positioning brands, when planning company strategy, or when analyzing competitors." Each day, business leaders are required to make decisions that involve trade-offs of one kind or another. I agree with Maney that "how they play out in the marketplace is the key to countless business successes and failures." That is what Maney characterizes as "the fidelity swap" and there are five key concepts behind it: fidelity (i.e. the total experience) versus convenience (how easy or difficult it is to get what you want), the tech effect (i.e. technology's impact on improving both fidelity and convenience), the fidelity "belly" (i.e. "the no-man's-land of consumer experience"), the fidelity mirage (i.e. that product or company can achieve both high fidelity and high convenience), and super-fidelity or super-convenience (i.e. this defines the "winners" such Apple's iPhone and Wal-Mart, both of which got to top of one axis or the other...but never attempted to reach both). Maney also identifies two significant additional factors: social accelerants that increase the importance of personal relationships even more and "wrecking ball" moments that occur when a new product or service (e.g. digital cameras in 2000) "smashes" a market sector and creates an entirely new one. I was especially interested in Chapters Five and Six in which Maney discusses Super Fidelity and then Super Convenience. Is Super Fidelity possible? Yes, difficult but possible. Is it sustainable? Yes, but that's much more difficu

Trade Off

It may be categorized as a business book, but it also pertains to, and is understandable by, the individual layman. It is an easy read that holds your attention by illustrating brands familiar to all of us.