• On The Insider: Britney's Bikini-Clad Top 10
November 29, 2007 7:47 AM PST

Slow innovation -- long wow?

by Tim Leberecht
  • Font size
  • Print
  • 1 comment

(Credit: Yodel Anecdotal )

The Putting People First blog by Experientia has pointed me toward the excellent essay "The Long Wow" by Adaptive Path's Brandon Schauer. Schauer outlines a vision of creating lasting customer loyalty and brand value that runs counter to the fixation on quick wins and instant gratification, which many companies, under the pressure of shorter product life cycles and CMO tenures, seem to pursue these days. He defines "The Long Wow" as "a means to achieving long-term customer loyalty through systematically impressing your customers again and again."

This goes far beyond adding new features for features' sake, implementing loyalty programs such as membership awards, or simply measuring loyalty in economic terms. He writes, "Like Christmas, customer loyalty can't be bought or bottled. It's not something you can capture in an ID card. Loyalty is a sense that grows within people based on the series of notable interactions they have with products, services, and companies." As he describes them, "Notably great experiences are punctuated by a moment of 'wow,' when the product or service delights, anticipates the needs of, or pleasantly surprises a customer. For Schauer, "OXO's Good Grips Angled Measuring Cup triggers such a moment of wow. A set of angled markings on the OXO cup lets you quickly measure liquids for recipes without having to stop cooking and bend over. Suddenly a little part of your life is easier, because OXO thought carefully about the way you cook. This delightful surprise resonates because it feels tailored to your needs."

It is interesting to assume a causal relationship between this kind of lasting value and the time it takes to create it. What if the immense pressure to innovate quickly or to rush to market comes at the expense of quality and sustainability? What if the "Long Wow" presupposes a long time-to-market or, in other words, "slow innovation?" Innovation and creativity expert Derek Cheshire has answers to these questions and--obviously inspired by the Slow Food movement--suggests a slow approach to innovation. In a recent manifesto for Change This, he heralds the goal of creating "an innovative company whose structure and culture are conducive to long-term growth and sustainability." His argument is convincing, "In the world of slow, there will be less waste as there's time to be more resourceful and to use the materials already available."

Essentially, this is a question of how companies manage their time. Both the concepts of "Long Wow" and "Slow Innovation" ask for more time: more time to listen to customers, more time to build a meaningful relationship with them, and more time for the innovator to develop products and services that are built to last. But what about the customers? Will they have the time to wait for this kind of high-quality, sustainable innovation?

Tim Leberecht is Frog Design's of vice president of marketing and communications. He has worked in the media, entertainment, and high-tech industries. Most recently, he was the head of corporate communications at Mindjet, a provider of mind-mapping software for the enterprise. Prior to Mindjet, he served as a press chief for the Athens 2004 International Olympic Torch Relay and in marketing communications for Deutsche Telekom in Germany. Tim runs the iPlot blog, and has published and spoken about branding, organizational communication, social media, and attention economics. Tim is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET.
Recent posts from Matter/Anti-Matter
Apple, Bloomberg: Two media brands in the social era
The psychology of healthcare reform
Mad Men finale: So you like being in advertising after all?
The world's first crowdsourced creative agency
Forrester: Adaptive branding and the new four P's of marketing
California artist rebuilds world economy with antimatter
Lessons for Nook from Zune
Social media count shows how active the social web is
Add a Comment (Log in or register)
by IsoMedic November 29, 2007 10:52 AM PST
I think Apple is a really good example of this. Especially since they've been building their following slowly over the past 5 years or so. OSX hasn't had drastic design changes, but has slowly been building in features in a way that lets people get used to them, learn them, and grow comfortable with them. This is an excellent approach, one that Microsoft hasn't picked up on, Vista being a good example.

If you have a truly good piece of technology, people have no problem holding on to it for a while.

Too bad I can't afford a Mac *frowny face*, otherwise, my Windows machine would be out the window.

I think the following will be slow to build with any company that takes this approach. But, like Mac, you'll always be keeping the costumers you have while gaining new ones, instead of gaining and losing at the same time. I'm ready to jump the Windows boat (I'm currently learning Ubuntu Linux).

This is definately a thought-provoking method. One that doesn't have immediate and gigantic gains, but allows for a more permanent following.
Reply to this comment
advertisement

The browser battles go on and on

roundup From Firefox to IE and from Chrome to Opera and Safari, there's no sitting still for browser makers looking to keep their products fresh and competitive.

3G wireless still holds promise

The next generation of 4G wireless may get all the headlines, but advanced 3G technology will likely dominate services for the next few years.

About Matter/Anti-Matter

Tim Leberecht and Adam Richardson both work for Frog Design, a consulting firm specialized in designing innovative products and services for Fortune 500 clients. On the Matter / Anti-Matter blog, they engage in a debate around questions they face day-to-day in their work, using convergence/divergence as a lens through which to look at the pressing issues in business, culture, and technology. What makes a successful convergent product or a successful divergent innovation? Is convergence a myth that users don't really care about, or is the current state of convergence just not satisfying enough for them to embrace? How much divergence of innovation is good, and when does it just become confusing? How do you stay on top of people's ever changing needs and wants?

They are members of the CNET Blog Network and are not employees of CNET.

Add this feed to your online news reader

Matter/Anti-Matter topics

advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right