Re: [spiers] A Case In Point
Why would you want to give your product innovations away to others? So they can
make the big money? A new idea can on an old product can be very profitable.
Nobody is a limitless fountain of creativity, so run with your ideas.
Paul Snyder
I enjoyed the article and look forward to using the new product.
What is not clear from my reading of the article was whether the idea
leader, in this case Ms. Adler, did indeed end up with a royalty-based
arrangement or not. It seems that she paired with a designer hired by
Target, and as such performed more of a designer role.
I am interested in John's take on this. I was discussing John's biz
model recently in Hong Kong with an acquaintance who validated the
model. She also suggests that one can sell concepts to, or form royalty
arrangements with, design houses who need a steady flow of new ideas.
She is doing this herself. It seems that for those of us who can
innovate frequently, it may be a way to earn based on idea strength (if
royalty-based and the product sells) and spare us from the burden of
running the other aspects of an importing business. Or perhaps the
percentages from royalties is relatively small compared to the profit
margin built into an import biz model? I'm very curious about this.
Thanks,
Paul
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 5:00pm, wileyccc@aol.com wrote:
>
> I do not know the rules of posting on the message board so I though I
> would
> send you this article and you can decide what to do with it at your
> discretion:
>
> http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/health/features/11700/index.html
>
> Although it does not get into the details of design it is a great
> example
> taking an old product that has had little innovation for a long time
> and
> revamping it. Also there has been recent discussion on the board of
> getting our ideas
> stolen from bigger companies. I think that any one of us would be
> extremely
> lucky if a company "stole" our ideas in this way.
>
> Although you do not advocate the use of patents that does not mean the
> same
> process that the lady in this article went through is not useful.
> Instead of
> selling the patent to Target, we could sell our "idea" to the company
> that
> makes the bottles and let them worry about the patent. They could sell
> the newly
> designed bottles to the stores in the same way that they do now. In
> line with
> your preferred method, we would just take our small percentage of each
> bottle
> they sell.
>
> What do you think?
>
Friday, April 22, 2005
A Case In Point
Thursday, April 21, 2005
A Case In Point
Re: [spiers] A Case In Point
She also suggests that one can sell concepts to, or form royalty
arrangements with, design houses who need a steady flow of new ideas.
She is doing this herself. It seems that for those of us who can
innovate frequently, it may be a way to earn based on idea strength (if
royalty-based and the product sells) and spare us from the burden of
running the other aspects of an importing business. Or perhaps the
percentages from royalties is relatively small compared to the profit
margin built into an import biz model? I'm very curious about this.
***OK..so there are 2 questions here: is being a designer the way to go? Is
Target first the way to go?
One of the discrete roles in all of this is the designer, and one of our roles
is to feed them feedback from the market so they can ever improve the idea,
making it ever more desirable in the market. If you are a designer, then
design. The problem here is sustainability. Yes, designers do quite well, when
their designs sell. Problem is few designers can keep the ideas flowing over
any sustainable amount of time, unless they are tied into a network that moves
the ideas into product.
Eric Clapton has lasted as long as he has because he knos to bring in a new
producer for every album. The producer is actually the designer. Clapton has
barely an octave in vocal range and he only knows 4 chords, but he is one of the
top.
And as a designer Burt Bacharach has survived with music written for everyone
from Jacki de Shannon to Elvis Costello.
Some importers are also very good designers, but the ones that survive know to
hire other designers when things get tired. What the import compnay gives you
is the ability to keep the ideas and orders and money flowing.
This weaves us into the question of starting with Target or other big box. the
problem here is we leave money on the table and we miss other opportunities.
Now I doubt anyone "snatched a patent..." , that does not sound real world.
Patents take more time and trouble and money than that. Further, since upside
down bottles are very old hat...heinz ketchup, skippy peanut butter, elmers
glue, best foods mayonnaise...all are sold in upside down bottles, the list is
endless...I doubt this is even patentable, whether or not patents make any sense
anyway. But set that aside.
Did y'all notice all the prototypes? a few peoples ideas..no reference to the
market... problem with upside down bottles is people open them upside
down...that is they screw off the lid while reading the label...lid comes off
and pills drop to the floor. Grandma on the bathroom floor cussing and scooping
up qualudes...it's not a pretty sight..
By failing to cater first to upscale pharmacies in upscale communities, and
first getting the bottle right, the subjects here missed the opportunity to get
the bottle very right, plus the opportunity to build an iinfrastructure, paid
for by rich people covering the cost of $1 bottles (target will get them for
about 7.25 cents each) . Further, the hands on process would give them tips as
to what to develop NEXT, and thus keep the ball rolling. som much money and
potential left on the table.
As it stands now, their bottle hits Target, and based on the Target Experience,
Walgreens makes a different competing bottle that has no patent infringement cuz
it is clearly different and in that measure also superior. End of story for
designer.
She will miss the new ideas, and not own the follow-up.
So my critique would be, 'good she started with a problem she experienced, bad
move to take it to Target first.."
John
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
A Case In Point
Re: [spiers] A Case In Point
I enjoyed the article and look forward to using the new product.
What is not clear from my reading of the article was whether the idea
leader, in this case Ms. Adler, did indeed end up with a royalty-based
arrangement or not. It seems that she paired with a designer hired by
Target, and as such performed more of a designer role.
I am interested in John's take on this. I was discussing John's biz
model recently in Hong Kong with an acquaintance who validated the
model. She also suggests that one can sell concepts to, or form royalty
arrangements with, design houses who need a steady flow of new ideas.
She is doing this herself. It seems that for those of us who can
innovate frequently, it may be a way to earn based on idea strength (if
royalty-based and the product sells) and spare us from the burden of
running the other aspects of an importing business. Or perhaps the
percentages from royalties is relatively small compared to the profit
margin built into an import biz model? I'm very curious about this.
Thanks,
Paul
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 5:00pm, wileyccc@aol.com wrote:
>
> I do not know the rules of posting on the message board so I though I
> would
> send you this article and you can decide what to do with it at your
> discretion:
>
> http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/health/features/11700/index.html
>
> Although it does not get into the details of design it is a great
> example
> taking an old product that has had little innovation for a long time
> and
> revamping it. Also there has been recent discussion on the board of
> getting our ideas
> stolen from bigger companies. I think that any one of us would be
> extremely
> lucky if a company "stole" our ideas in this way.
>
> Although you do not advocate the use of patents that does not mean the
> same
> process that the lady in this article went through is not useful.
> Instead of
> selling the patent to Target, we could sell our "idea" to the company
> that
> makes the bottles and let them worry about the patent. They could sell
> the newly
> designed bottles to the stores in the same way that they do now. In
> line with
> your preferred method, we would just take our small percentage of each
> bottle
> they sell.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Tom
A Case In Point
I do not know the rules of posting on the message board so I though I would
send you this article and you can decide what to do with it at your discretion:
http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/health/features/11700/index.html
Although it does not get into the details of design it is a great example
taking an old product that has had little innovation for a long time and
revamping it. Also there has been recent discussion on the board of getting our
ideas
stolen from bigger companies. I think that any one of us would be extremely
lucky if a company "stole" our ideas in this way.
Although you do not advocate the use of patents that does not mean the same
process that the lady in this article went through is not useful. Instead of
selling the patent to Target, we could sell our "idea" to the company that
makes the bottles and let them worry about the patent. They could sell the
newly
designed bottles to the stores in the same way that they do now. In line with
your preferred method, we would just take our small percentage of each bottle
they sell.
What do you think?
Tom
Monday, April 18, 2005
Apple Design
Folks,
I disagree with the argument that "all it took was capital" (I say all it
takes is customers...) but here is a good example fo competiing on design...
great pictures...
John
http://www.mises.org/story/1786