October 4, 2010

61) Amazon Prime

危 wēi  danger

Retailer loyalty programmes fall in and out of fashion.  Their supporters describe increased customer stickiness (particularly for retailers that become known for value in price-sensitive markets), increased average spend per customer and valuable data aggregation for market research on shopping habits.  Tesco clearly believes in these benefits as it relaunched its Clubcard last summer, leading to an increase in scheme members to 15 million.  However, the schemes are expensive to launch and run: Clubcard’s relaunch cost c£150m.  In addition, as referenced in this Marketing Magazine blog, Tesco is quite unique: it sees data frequently and across many items, is able to change its offer using that data and can sell the data to its suppliers, turning a cost-centre to a revenue centre.  Given the high costs and uncertainty of benefits Amazon would surely be crazy to launch a loyalty programme open to everyone in a similar way?

机 jī opportunity

Maybe not.  Keith Melker, my friend from HBS, recently brought to my attention a slightly counter-intuitive trend in the introduction of ‘paid’ loyalty programmes in the US, and helped me understand why they’re often smarter than they appear.

Amazon Prime, launched in 2005 is one such example in which members enjoy unlimited free shipping with no minimum purchase amount.  But, instead of giving membership away free Amazon charges $79 per year.

Superficially you might expect this to be taken up solely by Amazon’s most frequent customers and that the programme would be loss-making because those customers place frequent orders (which Amazon would have to foot the shipping bill for).  But that assumes that customers don’t change their behaviour as a result of being a Prime member and a quick scan of various blog posts suggests that they do.  In fact anecdotal evidence suggests that Amazon’s customers go from about $160/yr to $600/yr after they buy Prime.  It appears that once customers pay for Prime they begin to order more (perhaps because they feel that they’re beating the system).  So, assuming the combination of the Prime charge and the increase in margin per member is greater than the value lost through free shipping it’s a business masterstroke.  Had Amazon given it away free the uptake might have been greater and the behaviour change might not have been as dramatic: that could have been hugely expensive.

How About…

  • Re-examining loyalty programmes – perhaps deliberately offering it to a select group (rather than everyone)?
  • Or even charging for it if it might drive positive behaviour change?

—

August 2, 2010

Why I think OpenIDEO is important

This is a break from my usual blog post format but today is a special day: we’re launching OpenIDEO – a platform designed to bring people together to solve problems for social good. Here’s a quick intro video (those of you that know me may recognise the voice):

I’ve been thinking about and developing this opportunity for a few years and thought I’d jot down a quick personal perspective on why I think it’s important.

Collaboration works. Cities have always been hotbeds of innovation.  Why?  Because high population densities bring together minds and enable collaboration.  Solitary inventors deliver, but the world is getting too complex for individuals to make breakthroughs at the societal level as frequently.

vs  

Take helicopter design: although Leonardo Da Vinci had a good go at designing a whole ‘helicopter’ in the 1480s no individual on the planet would be able to design and build a groundbreaking one today from scratch.  I don’t imagine there’s even an individual that could design and build all of the electronic systems. Today, most breakthroughs require collaboration.

Collaboration works between similar individuals: 1+1 = 2.5. But we have learnt through our work that collaboration works even better between diverse individuals (whether the differences stem from culture, experience, knowledge, approach or all of the above): 1+1 = 3. Diversity of perspectives drives better results.

And it doesn’t need to be ‘physical’ anymore. In the past collaboration has generally required physical meetings, it’s still arguably the most effective approach.  But technology is providing new means to meet and collaborate virtually, for example social networks (including Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn) provide us all with new tools for collaboration.  Harnessing technology will be essential for impactful collaborations in the future, particularly since we know that diversity is important.

When companies choose to prevent employees from using social networks (usually to keep them focused) I wonder if they’ve thought through downsides – not least that they may be preventing their employees from developing these new collaboration muscles.

And we care. Although voter numbers are dwindling, consumer and citizen engagement around brands and local politics is increasing – partly because these are the areas where we believe we can have impact. This is likely to increase – particularly after a period where we have all been forced to reassess our values (the economic meltdown) and because technology is offering us all greater power to affect that change.

–

So, with these big trends in mind, we built a technology platform to enable diverse people to collaborate in solving problems for social good.  We hope that it makes a difference.

July 13, 2010

58) Dropbox

危 wēi  danger

MIT-grad Drew Houston was frustrated with how often he forgot his USB drive.  He was sure that there was a better solution, probably a Web-based file hosting service but he couldn’t find one available so he founded Dropbox with a fellow MIT-Grad to build it.  Shortly after receiving seed financing from Y-Combinator in 2007 they released a short video explaining their plans on Hacker News – the video received 1200 Diggs and Houston realised that they must be onto something.  They built the product (which is worth checking out for its wonderfully simple UI here) and officially launched at 2008′s TechCrunch50, an annual technology conference.  Initial users loved the product so the next logical step seemed to be to advertise and they launched an Adwords affiliate programme.  The results were shockingly poor – customer acquisition cost proved to be $233-388 (for a $99 product).  Perhaps the company’s VC backed competitors were overspending and the company would never be able to compete?

机 jī opportunity

The team interpreted the situation differently – they didn’t see the cost of Adwords advertising as the problem, they concluded that their challenge was that consumers don’t search for problems that they don’t know they have.  In other words the team needed to find a way to create demand, not harvest it.  The team knew that users that were referred to the product invariably loved it so they developed a system to incentivise the referral process (gifting both the referrer and the new users free memory – a 2-sided incentive).  The approach worked: user numbers from Sept 2008 to Jan 2010 have increased from 100k to 4m, and 35% of these new users joined directly from the referral programme.

How About…

  • Questioning whether your aim is to create or harvest demand?
  • Using 2-sided incentives to drive sales?

–

I like the low-fi introductory video (the only information on their homepage), it reflects the team’s humility and dives straight into the benefit using an analogous situation:

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »