About Me

I’m a product strategist and writer. In my day job, I’m a Creative Director at frog design. I also write for Cnet on the Matter/Anti-Matter blog. This is my personal blog and does not represent the views of frog or Cnet.

Where I am: At home (Oakland, California)

More about me >

Subscribe
This area does not yet contain any content.
Powered by Squarespace
Tuesday
30Jun

50 Years of Honda in the USA

The new issues of Automobile Magazine just showed up, and in it is an article about the 50th anniversary of Honda arriving in the USA. Honda had a presence as a motorbike company in the US long before it was a car company. How it was able to create a toehold that blossomed into an industry-changing dominance - essentially killing the British motorbike industry in the process - is the stuff of business school legend.

I wrote up a version of this story for my book (which is coming along nicely, by the way), but it didn’t make the cut. I was going to use it as an example of how companies which are adaptive to the changing environment, and their unfolding understanding of the market context, will be able to jump on opportunities as they arise, rather than sticking doggedly to a pre-ordained strategic plan. Here it is below.

————

In the late 1950’s Honda contemplated a bold move: entering the motorbike market in the United States. We all know how this story turns out — today Honda is a dominant player in the US, selling a wide range of models in large numbers. But its start could not have been more improbable or less likely to succeed. It was only by staying flexible to an emerging understanding of what the problem — and the opportunities — were, that Honda succeeded in its long shot.

Honda had done well in its native Japan, leaping in a short amount of time to the number one position largely on the strength of its Super Cub model, which was based around a new lightweight, 50cc engine that Honda had developed. The engine was inexpensive which allowed the bike to be sold for a low price, an important factor in Japan’s struggling post-war economy. The Super Cub had also been designed with close attention to customers’ needs such as the ability to drive it one-handed to facilitate carrying a package in the other arm.

At face value, the Super Cub had little appeal for the American buyer. The motorbike market in the US at the time was quite small and dominated by entrenched players such as Harley Davidson, Indian, and imports like Triumph and Moto Guzzi. There were only 1,000 full-time motorbike dealers in the entire country (compared to some 10,000 today), and most bikes were either in the mold of Harley-Davidson — large, heavy, and built for noisy cruising, or were sportbikes made for performance, exemplified by Triumph. Motorbike riders were generally seen as nefarious outsiders, clad in leather jackets and riding in packs to terrorize small towns and cause trouble at funfairs, an image played up by Hollywood — think James Dean, Marlon Brando in The Wild One, and Easy Rider. Furthermore, Japanese products with funny names were looked upon suspiciously by American consumers.

In 1958 Honda dispatched Kihachiro Kawashima (who went on to become president of American Honda) and his assistant, to spend time in the US and scope out the market for Honda’s bikes. Honda had no market research of any kind, and in fact knew very little about America at all. Kawashima’s reaction upon arriving in the US was, “How could we have been so stupid as to start a war with such a vast and wealthy country?”

Click to read more ...

Thursday
11Jun

The iPhone is a Subscription

The NYT’s Bits Blog spells out how the pricing for the iPhone basically turns it into a subscription, at least for people who want to upgrade their phone regularly. With the new prices and GS model announced Monday, there are now three tiers, as described by Bits:

  • The $199-every-two-years plan. That gives you the base model of the most current phone hardware every two years. You have to suffer a year of jealousy when others have the newest phone and you don’t. There is a similar $299-every-two-years plan for the higher capacity phone.
  • The $399-every-year plan (with an introductory rate of $199 the first year only). For four times the effective annual cost, you get the base model as soon as it comes out. Premium users may gravitate to the $499-a-year plan ($299 to start out) to be sure of having the very best model.
  • The new $99-every-two-years plan, if you want to have last year’s model and keep it for two years. As I wrote Monday, this may go down to a $0-every-two-years plan next year.

Given that the average consumer gets a new cellphone every 18 months, this isn’t really different from what’s been going on for years, it’s just that the price-point is far higher. But it’s not out of line for other smartphones, and if anything Apple has been pushing prices down in the category — for launch prices at least. BlackBerry and Palm both had to launch the Storm and Pre, respectively, at the $200 pricepoint, or they wouldn’t stand a chance against the iPhone.

The difference is that in the past launch prices quickly dropped, sometimes to free, whereas Apple keeps them consistent throughout the life of a product generation. So while it puts pressure on competitors for their launch prices, it also opens the door for them to drop their prices over time, perhaps significantly undercutting the iPhone.

[And for the record, I sympathize with a commenter on the Bits Blog post that it’s unfortunate that so many see resource-intensive products like cellphones as disposable on such a frequent basis. Granted, they get beat up a lot being handheld and portable, but upgrading is by far the most common reason. I have to plea guilty as charged here too, though I generally hang on to a phone for more like 3 years (my Sony Ericsson has a cracked screen, but otherwise I still use it).]

Wednesday
10Jun

Twitter is not a Conversation Platform

Insightful post from O’Reilly about the strengths and weaknesses of Twitter, which echo very basic thoughts I’ve had about the service. Mark Drapeau goes into much more depth than i’ve thought about the topic. He starts out saying:

Perhaps the most common reason given for joining the microsharing site Twitter is “participating in the conversation” or some version of that. I myself am guilty ofusing this explanation. But is Twitter truly a conversational platform? Here I argue that the underlying mechanics of Twitter more closely resemble the knowledge co-creation seen in wikis than the dynamics seen with conversational tools like instant messaging and interactions within online social networks.

What makes for a good conversation? There are obviously many different kinds of conversations, but I think what most people would consider a conversation has a number of key elements:

 

  • A narrative thread that is flexible and changeable, but follows a familiar pattern. Twitter lacks that (or rather, the way that Twitter threads are typically represented make the narrative very difficult to follow unless you spend some time learning the lingo
  • A coherent, relatively stable, and acknowledged set of participants. Twitter conversations jump around between participants, you never really know who you’re talking with, and random people can jump in at any point
  • Shared contribution. Twitter obviously allows anyone to participate, however, Drapeau notes that 90% of Twitter content is produced by 10% of participants. This is more like someone holding court at a party with people standing around saying “hell yeah” or “ditto” rather than a real conversation.

Twitter is supposedly breaking more into the mainstream, but for me it is far from certain that the attributes that have served it well in its niche pioneer audience of techies will translate into a mass medium. The lack of ability to define what Twitter does has made it part of the fun so far, but will hinder its broader adoption.

Read Mark’s full article >

 

Saturday
06Jun

Can I Interest You in a Quality GM Automobile?

OK, so now what?

Tuesday
02Jun

Microsoft Bing: It's cherry-licious

Microsoft’s new search engine, Bing, is the first real competitor to Google.

I rarely use Google. Or rather, I rarely use Google.com. Because Google is embedded into Safari, I just use the search box there, which creates huge sticky-ness that’s hard to displace. Of course, Microsoft has the same option now for embedding Bing into IE, assuming it’s allowed to by the courts. But the very short amount of time I’ve spent with Bing has me re-thinking my search engine options seriously for the first time.

I know a lot of people gush about Google’s user experience, and certainly there are a lot of nice things about using it: speed, accuracy of results, some things like weather that give instant contextual results. But from an aesthetic point of view I’ve found its minimalism to be on the drab side, rather than the chic side. It’s utilitarian, not fancy, and mostly not that fun.

Bing has had the courage to say “to hell with eeking out the last millisecond of page load time” which both Google and, historically, Yahoo have always emphasized. In today’s world and moving forward it’s just not that important (mobile being an exception, but for that you can provide a custom experience).

Katherine Boehret at WSJ has a write-up on the niceties of Bing, so I won’t repeat them here. It does some things different than Google, breaking some ingrained habits, and while there isn’t much that’s significantly worse, there is quite a bit that is considerably better. The results that come back are somewhat different, sometimes more on target, sometimes not, I’d say the jury’s out on that, especially since this is a just-launched service (assuming it’s not just a re-skin of Live, I don’t know what’s under the hood), and assuming it will improve as users contribute with clicks. (Like Google, it lists this blog as the top search when I self-search, so that’s a plus.)

It presents the search results in a whole lot nicer way than Google, especially image search (multi-size thumbnails and grids, different choices of detail, filters by image size, colors, etc., and overall a presentation that focuses on the images themselves). I love how sounds and videos are embedded into search results and start playing with a mouse-over for a small preview. Hovering over the right edge of a search result description pulls up more info without having to click on it.

I like that the front cover photo changes each day and how you can float over it to find the hidden easter eggs that lead you on unexpected paths (one is shown popped up in the bottom right of the above image). Ask.com tried the splash-image approach but that was more of a skin, but Bing’s approach is more engaging and encourages you to actually visit the front page, rather than bypass it as quickly as possible to get to the results.

Bing avoids two traps: One, it doesn’t just try to ape Google. Two, Microsoft hasn’t over-styled it and thrown in the kitchen sink of aesthetics and functionality, as they have with many of their other products. There is clearly an editorial hand at work that hasn’t allowed it to get focus-grouped to death. Kudos to Microsoft for that.

I’m going to drop Bing into my toolbar bookmarks and give it a whirl for a while. Who knows, maybe it will be enough to displace the 800lb gorilla.