

Why you should not build products people need - orangethirty
https://github.com/orangethirty/marketing_bits/blob/master/need_versus_want.md

======
hayksaakian
That's the biggest mass of pedantry I've ever read on the internet.

The author concludes with saying he built something he _thought_ people needed
and it fell flat. Obviously the problem was that he was too unsure they needed
it, and it turned out they didn't.

A diabetic needs insulin. Should insulin companies shut down because they
don't make something people want?

I call bullshit on the OP.

He implies that building a 'want' product is better than a 'need' product by
using confirmation bias and focusing on Apple products, vs using concrete
opposite examples.

~~~
orangethirty
Fair points. Though you pick a product that is also more of a _want_ than a
need. Diabetics _want_ insulin because they do not want to _die_. In other
words, their need for insulin is born from their desire to manage their
condition and live a normal life. I'm a heart disease patient. Every day I
drink a pill to control my health condition. I want to drink it because
otherwise I might cut my life short. Some people with the same condition don't
take the medication. Even though they want to keep on living they don't think
they need the medication.

 _The author concludes with saying he built something he thought people needed
and it fell flat. Obviously the problem was that he was too unsure they needed
it, and it turned out they didn't._

I have built _many_ things that have fell flat. Too much to count. Such is the
reason I have come to understand this. It is not something I'm pulling out of
mid-air.

 _He implies that building a 'want' product is better than a 'need' product by
using confirmation bias and focusing on Apple products, vs using concrete
opposite examples._

You missed the point. People buy products they want. Not products they need.
You should find out what people want and offer it to them. Within all markets
you can find niches. Say diabetics who want the insulin. There are also
diabetics who do not want insulin, and don't use it even though they need it
to stay healthy.

~~~
hayksaakian
Maybe we're just not on the same page regarding what a need is. If you don't
consider life saving medicine a need, then what is?

~~~
orangethirty
I know a couple of diabetics. One of them does not follow any type of
treatment. She decided to just _swing it_. Thus, she does not want the
medicines even though she needs them.

My father in law also did this. He passed away from prostate Cancer. He did
not want the treatment (until it was too late (sadly)). He needed it badly,
but did not want it. No one could force him to go through with it. We tried,
and failed. On the other hand, my father was diagnosed with prostate Cancer,
realized he wanted to live, got treatment, and had a positive outcome. He
needed the treatment, but also wanted have it.

------
seferphier
I disagree. Building something people want is often a bigger market than need
but that does not mean that you should forget about building products people
need.

Firstly, this analysis only applies to consumers. You need to build something
a business needs instead of want in order to succeed in the business
enterprise. Enterprise is a BIG market. Building medical equipment like MRI
scanners are not sexy like the iPod but that is something people need and
people will pay lots of money for.

Secondly, you can build a product of need and then transition to wanted
product. iPod started with need: to store a thousand songs in one device. This
was not possible with other competing products. Soon, it became a symbol of
need. People started lining up on the Apple store for new product launches.
The iPhone heat is slowing down since Apple did not deliver what consumers
wanted: a bigger screen.

Dropbox is another product of solving a need. We had to use our USB or email
transfer our documents. As a result, we had many versions of the same document
- not knowing which version is the most updated version. Mind you, Dropbox is
a billion dollar business.

~~~
orangethirty
_Dropbox is another product of solving a need. We had to use our USB or email
transfer our documents. As a result, we had many versions of the same document
- not knowing which version is the most updated version. Mind you, Dropbox is
a billion dollar business._

Dropbox is a want. You can go back to using the old methods. But you don't
_want_ that. You want to the ease of transferring files that Dropbox provides.
Stop seeing it as a logical argument. Like I said, people are not logical.

------
flatfilefan
the argument seems rather weakly researched especially when author claims
nobody new better than a CD player before iPod. IPod introduced a library
concept, together with computer centric iTunes this has changed then already
existing mp3 player industry. was it what people needed or wanted? so I'm not
convinced by the argument.

~~~
fleitz
People wanted an iPod, no one needs an iPod. The point of the example is not
irrefutable evidence, it's an anecdote. If you think that people _need_ an
iPod then you will do quite fine building things people _need_. (aka. want)

Many people need to fix their credit card debt. However, I'd sell NASCAR
plates before I sold a product that told people not to buy NASCAR plates on
credit. The only person who has really done well in the don't buy unnecessary
shit on credit cards space is Chuck Palahnuik, but I don't think his book
would have done very if the protagonist went about things in a practical way.

~~~
diminish
the author gives a clear impression that cd-players were replaced by ipod. so
the author does not have the notion or knowledge of mp3 players pre-ipod//

~~~
orangethirty
You are right, it does give that impression. But none of the digital music
players before the iPod did not manage to have the impact it had. The iPod
evolved from a music player to a personal computing device used by millions of
people. It also spawned the iPhone, which turned the mobile phone market
upside down. People make lines to buy the iPhone because they want it. No one
needs an iPhone. But they sure want it.

~~~
diminish
so clearly what you said and what OP said are different, OP claims ipod
success is due to cd-players failures (batteries etc).

"Wanting" is valid for some portion of consumer products and Need or some
others are valid for others. I never wanted an ipod, and it died. I never
wanted an iphone, and it is already dying too (check AAPL analysis). So watch
out, for "want" products, they die quicker. Ericcson, Nokia and RIMM have
experienced this and its Apple's turn.

~~~
orangethirty
Apple has made _hundreds_ of millions of dollars from a product people wanted,
and it somehow does not reflect my point?

 _so clearly what you said and what OP said are different, OP claims ipod
success is due to cd-players failures (batteries etc)._

I am the OP. The iPod was a success because it was the digital music player
people _wanted_. No more, no less. It evolved into a computing device that
changed the way we communicate.

~~~
diminish
i owned, gave away around 5 mp3 players pre-ipod, non of the factors you
count, counts really; some of them were shiny, most of them had PC-based
software. Apple simply had the coolness factor, hype machine and believers,
which means fat profits.

~~~
flatfilefan
apple iPod was cool, it had great iTunes (for the time), biggest HDD and the
ratings. Ratings changed the way I listen to the music (songs vs. albums)

------
mikevm
This reminds me of a TED talk:
[http://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspi...](http://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action.html)

And his book: [http://www.amazon.com/Start-Why-Leaders-Inspire-
Everyone/dp/...](http://www.amazon.com/Start-Why-Leaders-Inspire-
Everyone/dp/1591846447)

~~~
orangethirty
Thank you for posting the link. Mr. Sinek does manage to put it in a more
elegant manner. Very enjoyable and profound.

------
elango
would like to share my co-founder thoughts here, which i use to classify an
idea

needs (aka blood on the floor problem) - A person knows what he/she is missing
- less risky to build a solution since the problem is more or less well
defined

wants (aka cocaine) - A person doesn't realize a better solution can exist
unless he/she is exposed to it. Walkman solved the problem of mobile music,
but my thoughts are that people would have never been able to think while
using a walkman that a device like iPod would come in a few years and the same
reason why most of you are not able to think of a better device than iPod
today (it needs thinking like Mr Jobs to solve a wants problem).

------
mchusma
There is a logical fallacy running rampant through these threads, and w the
OP: having an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

------
BerislavLopac
Looking at it in a different way: build the products _YOU_ want.

------
gailees
This couldn't be more on.

------
InclinedPlane
This is a bit silly, of course it's good to build things that people need.

However, don't fall into the trap of building the _solutions_ that people
think suit their needs. In other words, don't let the public do your design
work for you. People are very bad at falling victim to "satisficing", going
with the easiest and simplest solution that seems to solve their problem. You
should avoid that, and be smart enough to come up with solutions that may not
have seemed obvious.

For example, falling victim to satisficing can result in trying to breed
better horses when the smart move is the automobile. Or building a smarter
email based form parser when the smart move is web based applications.

~~~
orangethirty
The horse vs the automobile is a great example of a want. People did not want
to deal with horses. They smell, can only carry two or three people, are slow,
and require a lot of upkeep. Worst is that they are dangerous. Horses can kill
with a bite or kick. No matter how much you tried you could not really improve
on a horse. The carriage proved that. How many _hundred_ of years passed
during which the carriage did not have any significant technical improvements?
This due to the fact that you cannot simply improve a horse.

On the other hand, the automobile has been evolving into something that people
go broke to buy every day. They do smell, harm the environment, are sometimes
slow (they started out to be very slow), require upkeep, and kill many people
every year. Yet they still buy it. People want it. Sure, there are other
factors at play such as automobile-biased planning to promote the sales of
cars. But at the end of the day, the market conditions are the wants that
define the want. The problem defines the want, which goes higher up the list
than the need.

Tell me, do you own a car? If so, which brand?

------
gailees
sooooo true

