Yesterday, during an interview with Andrew Warner at Mixergy, I spoke about my early work experience bagging groceries, selling shoes, pumping gas, etc. There’s nothing particularly unique about these jobs – they are common jobs. But they taught me some important lessons about people, how they decide what to buy, and what really matters to them.
Selling shoes (and tennis rackets) twenty years ago reminded me of selling software today. The shoe world and tennis racket world are very much like the software world. Manufactures pitch features and technological advantages but customers judge the products in an entirely different way.
When I worked at this golf and tennis pro shop selling shoes and rackets, brand reps would come by and tell the staff about the latest products. They’d explain the new EVA midsole in this shoe, and the Goodyear rubber outsole in that shoe. They’d talk about flex grooves, heel notches, cushioning systems, etc. They’d talk about graphite frames, widebody rackets, sweetspots, etc. On paper these were strong selling points, but in the store very few people cared.
Here’s how most people found a shoe and decided if it was right for them. They’d walk up to the pegboard wall where the shoes were lined up. They’d pick up a few, spin ‘em around, and put them back. Then they’d hone in on one of them because they liked the way it looked. They’d ask for their size, I’d bring it out, and they’d try it on. They’d jam their thumb between their big toe and the tip of the shoe to see if it fit. Then they’d maybe bounce around a bit or “hard walk” to see how the cushioning felt. Then they’d look in the mirror to see how it looked. They’d they’d buy it or repeat the process with another shoe.
The technology didn’t matter. The number of flex grooves didn’t matter. The chemical composition of the insole, midsole, and outsole didn’t matter. What mattered were the absolute basics: Do I like the way it looks, does it fit, and is it comfortable. Sold. All the other things that we were told about the shoe could never represent themselves in a 3 minute try-on anyway. Sole durability didn’t matter now. All the soles were equally durable during a 3 minute walk around on a carpeted store floor. Any talk about a midsole went right over their head. All they knew was “this felt good” or “this is too narrow” or “this rubs my big toe” or “ooh, this is comfortable.” I could explain this stuff all day long, but their realization always trumped my explanation.
This isn’t to say that some people didn’t take the features and technology seriously, but it is to say most – nearly all – didn’t. They didn’t care about the same things the manufacturer cared about. And they certainly didn’t see the world the same way the brand rep saw the world. The customer wanted the simple things done well. Their evaluation consisted of a few key things: look, fit, and comfort. And that’s it.
The same thing was true for tennis rackets. We were armed with every last fact about every last racket, but here’s how people picked a racket: 1. Their friend or tennis pro told them to buy it, or 2. They picked it up, did a few fake swings, bounced their hand off the strings, pictured themselves holding it on the court, and either bought it or repeated the same test with another racket. Often times they’d ask if it came in another color. No one asked about the size of the sweetspot, and very few cared about fiberglass vs. graphite. Some did, most didn’t. They cared about how it looked, how it felt, how much it weighed, and if their friends would approve. I could move people to this racket or that racket with some fancy facts, but most people made up their own mind based on a set of pre-determined criteria that had more to do with their own preferences than the brand’s preferences.
I saw the same thing when I worked at the grocery store. From the types of labels people read to the number of bags they wanted to take home. People would opt for clarity, comfort, and convenience. Yeah, spreading out groceries across 3 bags may have technically been better, but that meant they’d have to make another trip to their car when bringing their groceries in their house. They wanted simple. One trip, done.
It all reminds me of the software business. The industry is obsessed with touting features while the public is obsessed an entirely different set of criteria: Does it solve my basic problems and is it easy to use? Does it make sense? Do I understand it?
The real lesson for me is this: People want the basics done well. Does it look good, does it feel good, is it comfortable, is it clear, is it easy? No matter what you’re selling, those seem to be the things that really matter. Get those right and you’ve got a great shot at building a successful product and business.
Michel Billard
on 31 Mar 10As you said, “This isn’t to say that some people didn’t take the features and technology seriously, but it is to say most – nearly all – didn’t.” It all depends on who you are trying to sell to. You can sell to both groups, you just have to sell differently. The first group wants to see a good looking app that is user friendly, the other group, the one that shops will compare your app with others, features vs features. In both cases, a demo or trial is likely to help make the sale (just like trying shoes on).
yohami
on 31 Mar 10So much wisdom here and so much transferable to any context from business to relationships.
This single post made my day, maybe my year. Well done.
JF
on 31 Mar 10Yes, people are different, but the groups aren’t equal. Every experience I’ve ever had selling anything – from shoes to rackets to stereo equipment to computer parts – has taught me that the “I just want simple done well” group is the vast majority of people. Optimizing for that scenario is worth your effort.
Also, salespeople often think their words make difference that makes the sale. I’ve found that most of the time people aren’t listening when the salesperson is talking. People use that time to think their own thoughts and make up their own mind.
yohami
on 31 Mar 10@Michael
Google wave has all of the features I need but I cant get myself to work with it, so I dont think technical features “really” matter. Tech obsessed customers usually have a boss to report to or tech savy friends to please.
Steve Klabnik
on 31 Mar 10I think there’s also a huge disconnect between the people who are making the software and those who are using the software. We (as programmers) tend to evaluate things in an incredibly methodological way, and care about advanced features, and are willing to take the time to learn bad interfaces in return for “power features.”
But most people are not us.
Kirk Strobeck
on 31 Mar 10A good point, but poorly weighted.
All of the emphasis is directed at the two dimensional and basic consumer. I’d pose that the simple consumer is the smart one. There is a level of trust you place in a storefront, real or virtual. You trust that the seller has vetted the product, hence their ability to run a successful store and provide a service. Additionally, the recommendation of others is a strong trust point as well. The producer has the initial hurdle of the point-for-point comparison so the vendor can employ a trust relationship with the consumer.
Yes, the consumer does have a simple approach at a trusted shop. However, see the same consumer in a wary environment and you’ll see a technical master who ends up walking on the purchase. :P
PS. Grammatical error => “They’d they’d buy it” Also, like “they?” Used 26 times in 849 words, over 3%.
Andrew Warner
on 31 Mar 10I hate to admit it, but when I walk into the running store to buy a new pair of shoes, I get pumped that I’m a marathoner.
But the more the salesman starts to tell me about the running shoes, the dumber I feel.
And it’s useless information too. A shoe either looks and feels good or it doesn’t. Everything else doesn’t really affect my decision.
Thanks for doing the interview. I’ll post it today.
Vlad
on 31 Mar 10Nice post. Like this analogy with shoes selling, had same experience myself
I also wondering why this “People want the basics done well” cant be applied to the car industry. Manufactures are selling so advanced vehicles restyled every year(and you are paying for that!)All that advanced systems for and so on. While I just need good car that i can comfortable use for years… I dont really care if it will give me 21 or 22 mpg or 300 or 301 hp!
Does anyone else want 37signals to produce cars ? )))
Scott
on 31 Mar 10If the technology of rackets and shoes doesn’t matter, why is it highlighted by manufacturers? It’s for the press and the marketers.
Shoe and racquet manufacturers (and backpack, tent, etc. manufacturers) have to have something “new” constantly coming out so that 1) the magazines and websites that review products will have a steady stream of new products to review, hence promote in their magazines so that 2) consumers who shop by reading the annual “best of” issue will see the product.
Jon Kiddy
on 31 Mar 10Thanks Jason. Great insight to most people’s decision making process. Your post made me stop, think, and evaluate my own work as a customer would see it.
Hampton Paulk
on 31 Mar 10There is a running store near my house that may have found that balance in what people want. Sales folks spend time on how the product fits the customer, how it feels, and the type of runner / walker the customer is or wants to be. It is refreshing to have something presented to you in a way that shows actual concern for the goals you are in the store to achieve, other than tell you about the new poly-magic-supportage. Keeping it basic, clear, and making you feel good should be the goal of any product.
@kirk – don’t you feel that as a “technical master” you will ask the sales staff direct technical questions?
Daniel
on 31 Mar 10Great stuff, Jason! Lovely comparison.
The thing is, though, that a shoe or tennis racket maker isn’t selling directly to the consumer. They’re selling to the shop’s or the retail chain’s purchasing people. Since they’re not looking for new shoes for themselves, they try to evaluate products on the “objective” features. And so the makers of shoes and rackets have to tout their products’ features, because their customers are not the consumers.
This, again, mirrors the software world, where enterprise software is sold to a few people who sign the checks, and not to the people who’ll use the software. With enterprise software, the trouble is of course, that the consumer (employee) doesn’t have a choice, once the CTO (or whoever) has bought new software. With shoes, at least you can go to another store.
Lastly, there’s definitely something to Kirk Strobeck’s comment above: I myself prefer to buy things at shops where the employees know more than I do. Last time I bought an amplifier form my stereo system, I had a few tehnical questions, but I was mostly interested in the price and the design. But I trusted the people at the shop to know all the stuff I didn’t know or immediately care about, so they could guide me. So even if the customer looking for a shoe or a racket isn’t that interested in graphite frames or Goodyear outsoles, they probably like to think that you, the seller, do care about such things.
Yamil Gonzales
on 31 Mar 10With the shoes example, based on my experience I would add the price, very often one of the main criteria is the price, people is looking for something cheap (not cheap in terms of quality but price), the best product in the range they can afford. This also makes perfect sense with the concept of keeping it simple, since you’re not using fancy materials for your shoes it is very likely that you can also reduce the price.
Thanks for the article by the way ;)
Ben Carlson
on 31 Mar 10Jason, last week I posted (and you responded), stating that I was surprised by the inclusion of the tic-tac-toe game in your latest app. I questioned if you were the same folks who in the past derided fancy explorations like that.
This is a GREAT read, and touches on what first struck me about 37signals. You guys get “it”, and can communicate “it”.
I still wonder about the tic-tac-toe game though… :)
Killian
on 31 Mar 10Agreed- Normally if you end up in a checklist feature battle it usually means someone needs to justify what they already want to a board and you have already lost.
It is far more effective to get the client to tell you the problem they are trying to solve and then perform a live demonstration of how your software can help them address that problem.
Too often, if you just show all the features the client is overwhelmed and ends up either thinking – ‘this is made for someone with manyl more problems than I have’ – or even forgetting how your product solves their problem in the first place!
Ricardo
on 31 Mar 10True story, nice post. This is exactly how I buy most of the stuff I buy, specially shoes. Another important factor that you didn’t include is price, I bet that for most people this is a very important factor too.
Scott Loftesness
on 31 Mar 10I sold shoes for JC Penney as my first real job after paperboy. I had many of the same experiences about their buying decisions – along with learning how some of the more fashion-conscious folks really do believe their feet are several sizes smaller than they actually are!
Jason Dixon
on 31 Mar 10Great story, terrible analogy. Consumers buy tennis equipment for entertainment and exercise. They buy food for sustenance. They buy software to get work done. More features often (but not always) means getting work done better, faster or cheaper.
Dan Ritz
on 31 Mar 10I worked in a sporting goods store during college that had a lot of customers that were semi-pro (or they thought they were).
They all wanted to know the details and discuss every little thing.
Once someone bought a pair of shoes six or seven times and thought something better might be available, my advice asked for and listened to.
That happened with about 1 out of 20 customers and nearly all of them would buy what I recommended. The others just ignored me. I was rarely able to push a sale and quickly gave up trying.
The lesson I learned: people focus on what they’re comfortable with and what makes them look good when they don’t understand or care about what they’re buying.
I feel like your taking a certain type of person (novice) and assuming everyone is like that… But I do agree that most people have a strong defense for incoming “sales.” Even if the salesmen have good intentions.
JF
on 31 Mar 10Yes, price is almost always a factor.
JF
on 31 Mar 10I feel like your taking a certain type of person (novice) and assuming everyone is like that…
I’m not assuming everyone is like that. I said clearly a few times that most people are like that. Not everyone, but most. Most people are novices about most things they have to buy most of the time.
Johan Strandell
on 31 Mar 10I agree with basic gist of the post, but one important thing that I think is missing is the aspect of time and repeated purchases – durability and feel in the long run matters too. One bad purchase might be enough to make people avoid the brand for a long time.
So I think much of the consumer electronics and software industry have seen the same phenomenon, but drawn a different conclusion: that impressive demos and in-store looks matters more than actual usefulness. And this goes especially for complex products that can’t be evaluated with a quick check as you can do with a pair of shoes.
That said, getting down to actual simplicity can make you stand out when everybody piles on the bling. Flip vs other video cameras, iPad vs netbooks, Basecamp vs MS Project, etc.
Brent Rowland
on 31 Mar 10The great thing about selling shoes and tennis racquets is that you’re nearly-always selling to the person who will be wearing or using the item. Most software developers have the dubious pleasure of selling to people one or two steps removed from the actual users. These people are responsible for the checklists of features that define what businesses buy, rather than usability.
Deltaplan
on 31 Mar 10There is a MAJOR difference within the software market : very often (not always, but really often), the people who buy the software are not the ones who use it :
- people use the OS / apps that come pre-installed on the computer
- employees use the software that the IT of their employer has decided they would use
- students use the software that was chosen by their university, sometimes going as far as a national mandatory choice (for example, in France, a few years ago when I was a student, the use of Maple was mandatory in some national exams, therefore excluding any competitor product…)
- children play the video games that their relatives have given them… Their family buy the games, and expect the children to play them… Remember that golf game you’ve got at Christmas when you were 10 ?)
Of course this situation is not restricted to the software market (regarding the professional tools, it’s almost an universal fact). Of course, some people are always fighting against it (we all know people who will sneak a Firefox or any other app on their office computer, while the IT department of their company has decided they were to use IE 6 – when it’s not IE 5…). In France, there have already been cases of employees who have sued their employer about the software that they were provided with, generally in order to obtain software in French rather than in English – and in some cases, the judges have ordered the companies to change the software they were using for that very reason.
But the fact remains, and I think you are quite aware of it : there are lots of situations where the software vendor has to appeal the IT department of a company rather than the real users, or the education administration rather than the teachers and students, or the parents rather than the children, etc…
Sachin
on 31 Mar 10This is the exact viewpoint of most of the people I know…I can say that this is what I have observed and is absolutely correct.
Reggie
on 31 Mar 10I agree with the central premise of doing simple well, but isn’t this selection bias? how many shoes did you sell that weren’t built using cutting-edge shoe technology? even if they don’t know it, I’d think the technology does affect consumer judgment.
all the technobabble is for shit if it doesn’t deliver what the consumer actually wants, but still, I’d rather have vendors and manufacturers focusing on the best technologies than having them target only the criteria that consumers use in selecting a product.
Hrishi Mittal
on 31 Mar 10Jason, I really like this post. It was also my favourite part of the interview. I wish you’d spoken more about your early days because it put all of your other ideas into perspective. Like you said, it’s nice to hear where people are coming from and what their background is. Thanks for putting out simple, clear ideas. They help me focus.
Rusched
on 31 Mar 10I do agree with your points about how a consumer chooses a shoe once they’re in the store. This is not to say that the engineering that went into a shoe will not play a large part. A person will buy a shoe based partly on the criteria you list, look and basic initial comfort. They will choose a brand, or avoid it like the plague however depending on how it holds up to those initial purchase factors. I challenge that unless this was their first expedition into a shoe store after living in the jungle they avoided some brands and were drawn towards others regardless of form or initial comfort. The features that brought them back were probably more related to how the shoe felt over time. Many will be attracted to or avoid something based on the peer reviews and personal references. Either way, the choice of what shoe to buy starts before a shopper even enters the store. So I wouldn’t dis-credit those features, they do play a part in how a choice is made.
--Josh
on 31 Mar 10Beyond the flaw in the “durability doesn’t matter to the customer” argument that Johan Strandell pointed out, aren’t you speaking more to a sales communication issue than a design/focus/implementation issue? The customer may not care how many flex grooves are in the sole or what the midsole is made from, but those are individual elements that lead to the comfort that they do care about.
I think that the take-away is more about communicating the benefits to the customer in a way that is meaningful to them than a flaw in the focus when designing and producing the product.
Phyllis
on 31 Mar 10Does it solve my basic problems and is it easy to use? Does it make sense? Do I understand it?
The real lesson for me is this: People want the basics done well. Does it look good, does it feel good, is it comfortable, is it clear, is it easy? No matter what you’re selling, those seem to be the things that really matter.
Genuis in the simplicity – totally love it! I preach benefits benefits benefits all the time, but you said it sooo much better.
chris
on 31 Mar 10It’s similar to Google docs being superior over MS Word. Much less functionality and much easier to work with. And the most important things are auto-save to the cloud and collaboration.
JFR
on 31 Mar 10RIP Shelbys!
IanM
on 31 Mar 10Its funny. When you are really interested in something like mountain biking you know every detail about the gear. You only want the best and you cannot imagine why anyone would purchase anything other than a 5000.00 LiteSpeed with a custom crank and carbon fiber forks.
But in reality, the majority of bicycle consumers would be well served and happy with a 250.00 bike from the local bike shop.
As a software developer or technologist It is easy to forget that most people don’t care how high tech your app is. In the end they want a bike that is easy to use, already assembled, cheap to buy / repair and not a pain to maintain. None of which are offered by a 5000.00 pro mountain biker setup.
Dave Sailer
on 31 Mar 10This makes me wonder about the quality of your products. Just speculating here, but this sort of language fumbling really hits me in the face every time.
racket: noun, (only in singular) A loud noise. “Power tools work quickly, but they sure make a racket.”
racquet: noun, An implement with a handle connected to a round frame strung with wire, sinew, or plastic cords, and used to hit a ball, such as in tennis, or a shuttlecock in badminton.
hone: noun: A sharpening stone composed of extra-fine grit used for removing the burr or curl from the blade of a razor or some other edged tool.
hone: verb: To use a hone to remove the burr or curl on a thin-edge blade whose edge has been (sometimes microscopically) curled by sharpening with excessive pressure or sharpened on a coarser surface. To sharpen on, or with, a stone of fine grit.
Definitions of “home in” on the Web:
- range in: direct onto a point or target, especially by automatic navigational aids wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
- not hone in, is the correct phrase when the meaning is to move toward a certain place by following a signal or marker. To hone is to sharpen. www.buffalostate.edu/collegerelations/x855.xml
Michael Soriano
on 31 Mar 10Good post. After reading, I thought of my past work as a box boy at a grocery store. Yes – people did do those things. And same goes for when I buy shoes. I do all the things you said.
But as far as software – okay, it may be comparable. But it may not be as simple as you say: The strongest factor that gets me to buy software is: DO I REALLY NEED IT?? If the answer is yes – then I go read the customer reviews etc.
It’s not like I go browse the internet for what software is “on display” today – like a supermarket or a shoe store.
Erik Reagan
on 31 Mar 10@Michael S. Consider multiple products that solve the same problems. I, for example, went hunting for online invoicing services about a year ago. There were a number of options to me and in that context each option could be looked at as being “on display” while I made my decision for purchase/subscription
Rimantas
on 31 Mar 10@Dave Sailer: how about finding a better dictionary?
racket (also racquet) noun a type of bat with a round or oval frame strung with catgut, nylon, etc., used esp. in tennis, badminton, and squash. racket1 a snowshoe resembling such a bat.
hone verb [ trans. ] sharpen with a whetstone. • (usu. be honed) make sharper or more focused or efficient : their appetites were honed by fresh air and exercise.
Stan Hansen
on 31 Mar 10These are great points. I needed this. I often think of a marketing project and think “people are going to love this, it has all these cool things” not thinking about whether or not those cool things are really what drove decision making.
MichaelNozbe
on 31 Mar 10Jason, I remember you talking about this a while ago – especially about the fact that if a hotel doesn’t have a comfortable bed, nothing else matters.
These words came back to me when we went on a business trip with two friends of mine and one of them insisted we stayed at one of the W hotels, as they have a great brand and are very nicely designed.
Yes they do have this fancy design, cool lobby, nice rooms and lots of Whatever Whenever and other W-related stuff to them. And it’s all cool.
However, this particular hotel made a bad impression on me. The Wifi was painfully slow (although you’d have to pay for it), the room we got stunk from cigarettes and they said it was a non-smoking room. The bathroom door knob was broken… and although they cleaned the room every day, noone fixed it until we reported it three days later.
I’m not saying W hotels are bad. I’m sure most of them are great. This one wasn’t. Why? Because the basic stuff didn’t work. If I have a broken bathroom door, stinky room and lousy internet connection… the hotel’s fancy design doesn’t matter.
Daniel Kristensen
on 31 Mar 10It continuously amazes me, how the majority of the business world simply does not seem to crasp the importance of less and simplicity.
Example:
You can’t beat the iPad by putting out a crappy looking device with a half-assed user interface, and expect the consumer will buy it, just because it is twice as fast, has a larger screen, 5 USB ports and an optical drive. But I bet this is exactly the strategy the competitors will try for. It didn’t work with the iPod, it didn’t work with the iPhone, it didn’t work with the MacBook Air. Forth time lucky maybe? I think not.
JD
on 31 Mar 10So basically:
- Communicate the benefits as the customer sees them. - Sell to the majority of your customers instead of to the edge cases.
This follows the advice to stop thinking “what if” and “just in case” because if those things really matter you can always go back and address them.
Problems that matter become self-evident.
Henrique Carvalho Alves
on 01 Apr 10Amen.
Sometimes, it’s hard to have your company and/or product manager that getting the basics right are what 90% people need.
Specially in software, it’s way too easy to start dreaming about all sorts of crazy features and integrations… but your costumers don’t see your product the same way – the amazing way. They just want to do the boring stuff as fast and as easy as possible – or not do it at all.
Vineet
on 01 Apr 10Your insight into the psyche and how people buy is spot on excellent. I found myself nodding word for word. Good post. This should be part of the 101s for building most products.
Ian
on 01 Apr 10Great post. One point though. You were dealing with consumers not professional or business customers. I reckon selling rackets to ATP-ranked tennis players is a different ball-game and shifting groceries to 3-star chefs has a lot more to do with product qualities than single-bag convenience. And so with software and technology for enterprise users, getting the basics right still holds but they are just not quite the same basics. That’s the point. Understanding and addressing the basic key concerns of your particular customer and market.
Markus
on 01 Apr 10When I buy a new laptop, I buy: [1] the one that I have the strongest emotional feeling for (apple over pc – don’t know why); [2] I don’t care about features I don’t know (firewire, nvidia, 3rd-level cache, don’t even know what these terms mean); [3] the one that has the highest price that i can affort (A higher price means higher quality, because that is what the old man says.)
Jonas
on 01 Apr 10I hear what you say, but if one shoe brand had none of this high-tech nonsense, no bullet points or x-ray pictures on cardboard beside the shoes—would they sell equally well?
Sometimes I think this fake science stuff (that’s what it is) common in athletics gear as well as stereo/tv gear is a sort of lowest common denominator. As long as the product has some techy gobbelygook the customer thinks that the product is modern hi-tech and that may be a bullet point in their heads. Would a customer really reach for a shoe that didn’t include this nonsense? I don’t know because I haven’t seen one.
You say these things do not matter. I am not so sure. But it would be very interesting to test.
Visitor
on 01 Apr 10This is a fantastic post which should have made it into Rework!
Greg Laws
on 01 Apr 10Jason, I think your post emphasizes the importance of translating what problems the high tech features solve for customers, not just regurgitating the facts. Take the fiberglass vs graphite comparison for tennis rackets. Most people don’t care about the material the racket is made from. But they will care that the graphite racket will be lighter, “feel” better, and be easier to play. So, that’s how we should be selling it … because it will solve a problem, and be more valuable to the customer.
If you can’t figure out how a feature solves a problem for a customer, then you are going to have a very hard time selling it. And you probably wasted your time adding it.
Krabe
on 02 Apr 10Jason, this fable sounds like what matters for the first sale. Selling to the guy who is buying his first tennis shoes, first racket. Currently there might be a lot of money in that, but what about when he comes to buy his second pair, and second racket?
I doubt he will be as clueless as the first time, and the discussion may turn technical the second time around.
My point is, we are living in period of rapid change. This will pass. And then people will start coming back for the second round. That’s when real expertise will be required to make the sale.
JF
on 02 Apr 10My point is, we are living in period of rapid change. This will pass. And then people will start coming back for the second round. That’s when real expertise will be required to make the sale.
Work in retail for a year and let me know if you still agree with yourself.
Tom Miller
on 02 Apr 10Wonderful insight into a deep subject. It is so easy to get caught up in the technical details/features, that designers, sales folks and marketing folks can sometimes forget that it’s all about the user experience.
Design and technology are enablers…users benefit from the success of these efforts, but it is not necessary that they understand each little design tweak to appreciate the product as a whole.
Alan Green
on 03 Apr 10The same should apply to your website: It should fit the visitor: relevant content. Your static website doesn’t fit the many different visitors that land from many different origins on your website.
Just like buying a shoe, you only have a few seconds to make them feel comfortable and serving the information they are looking for.
Rebecca
on 07 Apr 10As you so rightly say, it’s all about function: will the software solve the buyer’s problem and do what he or she wants it to do? In the comments, we’re seeing people who disagree because for them part of the function of software is to provide the fun of exploring features and comparing technical details.
This doesn’t make your premise less true. It’s a different group of people who use software in a different way. Shoe collectors, people who use shoes to declare their level of fashion savvy, and people for whom shoes are an important status symbol all still buy shoes according to how they function and how well a pair fits their preconceived criteria—they just use their shoes differently from the person who buys a new pair of shoes when the old one gets holes.
With software, plenty of customers have the added complication of not actually knowing what the software will do and being unable to tell whether it’s going to work for them or not. Simplicity of presentation and free trials let them find out better than a chart comparing features can. Developers admire 37 signals and love the way they can adapt it to their needs, but shoe companies can also love it for the ease with which it meets their needs.
This discussion is closed.