Experience IS the product
Lo he visto en en el blog de John Howard (Living Brands). Es una afirmación rotunda que, aunque no es nueva, mantiene toda su fortaleza. Howard la toma del fantástico post que firma Peter Merholz desde Core 77, donde concluye:
“When you start with the idea of making a thing, you’re artificially limiting what you can deliver. The reason (the best examples of) forward-thinking product design succeed is explicitly because they don’t design products. Products are realised only as necessary artifacts to address customer needs. What (they) all realise is that the experience is the product we deliver, and the only thing that our customers care about”.
Â
Ya lo decÃa en 1888 George Eastman a propósito de Kodak: ”You press the button, we do the rest“. Un siglo más tarde, el mundo Apple o Flickr son otros buenos ejemplos.
Julio 9th, 2007 at 10:29
[...] Acabo de leer (vÃa Wordlab) el artÃculo que escribe Theodore Kinni sobre las razones por las que una compañÃa adopta un buen nombre, una mala denominación o una marca terrible. La idea es que en la actualidad “if you want to sell your widget around the world, you must either find a name that is compelling and legally unencumbered in the ten or fifty or however many different countries in which you plan to market it, or you must come up with a number of different, but still great, country-specific names for the same widget. And, by the way, you must also contend with all of the businesses around the world that are trying to come up with their own great names”. Sobre Kodak: “Over a century ago, Eastman approached the naming process in much the same way that many of today’s brand and trade namers recommend — playfully. According to company lore, he conjured it during a game of anagrams with his mother. He started with a letter. ‘The letter K has been a favorite with me — it seems a strong, incisive sort of letter,’ he said. ‘It became a question of trying out a great number of combinations of letters that made words starting and ending with K’. It sounds rather arbitrary, but Eastman had other reasons for settling on Kodak. ‘This is not a foreign name or word; it was constructed by me to serve a definite purpose,’ he explained on registering his trademark in Great Britain. “It has the following merits as a trade-mark word: First. It is short. Second. It is not capable of mispronunciation. Third. It does not resemble anything in the art and cannot be associated with anything in the art.’ [...]