Sears Could Disrupt Throwaway Tech Culture

It's funny the timing of this article.  I was just talking with my wife about Sears and how it seems they have no future, it's only a matter of time before the Sears retail store as we know it will no longer exist.  Then to read a headline about Sears disrupting?  Heck ya I'm interested.

The company has launched a Seattle office, and recruited retail tech execs to help it get a handle on the data it has amassed from the 40,000+ daily service queries its Home Services group collects on washing machines, refrigerators, and other appliances. It turns out that the industry average is that about 1 out of every 4 customers don’t get their appliance woes fixed on the first visit. 

“Each truck carries about 400 parts, yet those annual service calls require something like 168,000 different parts,” explained Arun Arora, the group’s president. “We’d have to have our 7,000 certified technicians driving semis around to anticipate them.”

"Big data" has so many applications and to see Sears trying to disrupt in a way that doesn't make headlines is impressive.  This kind of disruption, even though on the surface looks like a cost-savings initiative, can revolutionize the service of appliances.  Why does that matter?  Because loyalty is the name of the game.  If they make the experience of owning a machine better, even when it is getting old and needs some new life breathed into it, they can increase their base of loyal active customers.  

The more customers that are active with a company the more they will make.  If Sears can increase the number of loyal customers by offering a superior customer experience of ownership, they can drive more sales in other areas.  It is the process of rebuilding trust with a brand.  If I knew buying an oven will have a longer shelf-life and the company where I was buying it can make that happen, then it makes where I buy more interesting.  

So many times in the retail space it comes down to price.  Everyone sells ovens and mostly from the same manufacturers, so there is very little to differentiate.  The easiest rode to differentiation is price.  The problem is when competing on price, the business can never win.  They are not cultivating loyal customers, in fact they are probably selling to the exact wrong customer.  If a customer is only going to choose on price, they are by definition not loyal customers.  If Sears can differentiate beyond price and experience in the stores, they can grow their loyal database.  That's a big win.   

 

Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathansalemb...

Obsoletive: Revolutionary Products in Tech Don't Disrupt-They Obsolete

Three things irk me about “disruption” as it’s used in technology:

New products that do what existing products do, but (theoretically) better, are not disruptive. They are “sustaining.” Instagram Video is not disrupting Vine. It’s competing with it.

The misplaced obsession with low-end disruption, which, as I argued last week, doesn’t apply nearly as strongly to consumer markets.

The characterization of obsoletive technology as disruptive.

I like what Ben Thompson has to say here.  Everyone loves holding on to buzzwords, but the iPhone did obsolete its competition.  It literally put two of the most powerful companies out of business.  That wasn't disruptive, it was destructive. 

The rest of the article hits it on the nose.  Good read. 

Source: http://stratechery.com/2013/obsoletive/

What Clayton Christensen Got Wrong in his Theory of Low-End Disruption

Cool article about Clayton Christensen and his Theory of Low-End Disruption.  I think there are some great points in this article that highlight Apple as the use case.   

I don't subscribe to the theory of low-end disruption in the consumer space.  I think Ben Thompson is right on.  There are so many cases of companies that thrive without having to serve the low-end, even when the competition puts out a decent or "good enough" product at a much lower price point

  • BMW, Mercedes and Audi in cars
  • Apple in consumer electronics
  • Rolex and Tag in watches
  • Four Seasons in hotels

The list can go on and on.  Companies don't have to play the market share game to be successful.  It takes so much more effort to satisfy the masses, the support costs  and the scale the business has to grow are just two reasons why a business should think twice.

I prefer serving the fewest amount of customers to make the most profit.  In that model I can give better customer service and create a much more loyal base to maintain profit share.  

Source: http://stratechery.com/2013/clayton-christ...