

You don't need every customer - ajhit406
http://www.marco.org/2013/04/20/every-customer

======
bpatrianakos
I've been saying this forever here but Marco says it so much better. The
majority of the times I see an article on HN getting popular about how awful
some app or site is its usually this kind of scenario that Marco describes in
effect.

I can't tell you how many times I've seen an article here about some poor guy
complaining that his favorite app changed a feature or price or policy that's
often pretty trivial and turns it into an opportunity to start drama and shame
the company because he didn't get the memo. Except everyone else did.

When we see something we don't like it isn't bad to complain about it in and
of itself but what isn't okay is this self-righteous attitude people have
started to acquire. It's this phenomenon where we think that we can not only
publicly shame companies on our blogs and believe we're important enough for
them to change it back for us but, worse, we seem to think we're objectively
right. This sort of mentality doesn't seem to carry over into the real world
nearly as often. It seems that if you do business online your customers expect
you to cater to each and everyone one of them individually. If I have oddly
sized feet and can't get a pair of good fitting Nike's I don't try to publicly
shame the company for not providing a shoe in the style I want in the size
exactly tailored to my odd foot measurement. But when it comes to the Internet
you had better be all things to all people it seems.

Even stranger, for a community like HN where many of us are working on online
products, we seem more guilty of this than the average person. How is that? Is
it that we think because we know how to build things that our way is right? I
don't know but I'm really glad Marco wrote this and I'm really glad people
here are reading it.

~~~
mkoble11
_When we see something we don't like it isn't bad to complain about it in and
of itself but what isn't okay is this self-righteous attitude people have
started to acquire. It's this phenomenon where we think that we can not only
publicly shame companies on our blogs and believe we're important enough for
them to change it back for us but, worse, we seem to think we're objectively
right._

Social media is great - platforms like twitter and facebook give people an
online voice. However, this also creates an over inflated sense that their
voice matters more than _anyone_ else.

Part of the phenomenon you describe regarding public shaming is that this has
become _default_ way of addressing situations - because that's the _culture_
those social platforms have created & reinforced.

Further, it's much easier to do this online because you're just looking at
pixels on a page - not into the eyes of a fellow human.

------
ajhit406
I think Marco has a good point -- that you basically can't expect to please
everyone and you'll kill your product if you're optimizing for edge cases
(especially from irrational users and especially with a 1-man shop). However,
I also think it's important to be gracious to every one of your customers.

If someone paid for something and they're not happy, and if your costs are
virtually zero for that customer (and with iOS apps it almost inevitably is),
then you should _always_ apologize and offer them a refund. Even if you don't
want them as a customer, you can be gracious and they're probably less likely
to bash you publicly. That $0.99 is a small price to pay to avoid a negative
review. Mitch Hashimoto wrote a good post that serves as a basic guide for
customer support:

<http://mitchellh.com/apple-the-key-to-my-success>

~~~
chj
that is the reason apple should provide free trial.

If i apologize the cost is not zero any more.

~~~
rbritton
For people requesting a refund I tell them to contact App Store support. Their
official policy is no refunds, but I've never had someone come back saying
Apple said no. With enough hassle they might add a way for developers to do
refunds.

------
Lost_BiomedE
I learned that catering to everyone leads to mediocrity while in the
restaurant business. One chef I worked with was not afraid to tell people
where the door was. He had one of the top kitchens in Vancouver BC because of
it.

Listen to your customers, but know that in the end, you are responsible for
and the sole guardian of quality. If you don't know what quality is in your
area in business, move to somewhere you do.

------
ancarda
Sometimes I wish there was a way to flag a comment and have it pulled while
it's investigated. I wonder if there's enough reviews on the App Store to make
that impractical.

Also, I'd ban people from reviewing apps once they are found to leave
inappropriate ones like "this isn't a very fun game" on Instapaper - it makes
me immediately think they're a troll.

[Edit] to a degree, I wonder if we could algorithmically determine if a
comment is likely to be inappropriate and have it hidden until investigated.
But this all reminds me of a quote: "You can't solve social problems with
technology".

~~~
rbritton
I wish reporting a review had at least a non-zero chance on the App Store.
I've never had a single result or any feedback at all with it.

------
melvinmt
"If you sell a 99-cent app to just 1% of the people who bought new iOS devices
in the 2012 holiday quarter alone, you’ll clear about $519,750."

[http://successfulsoftware.net/2013/03/11/the-1-percent-
falla...](http://successfulsoftware.net/2013/03/11/the-1-percent-fallacy/)

~~~
tptacek
Marco's statement is not an instance of "The 1% Fallacy". He's not suggesting
that you can throw arbitrary products against the wall and succeed because 1%
=> 500k; he's saying "it's silly to try to cater to every customer because the
math doesn't make sense".

~~~
rmc
Here here. March's point is also that if you piss off 99% of the potential
market, you can still make a lot of money. He's addressing the 100% fallacy,
the idea that you have to satisfy 100%. He's pointing out that that's not
necessary

------
antidaily
Best part:

 _When evaluating complaints, we need to consider whether the complainer is
credible, whether they have reasonable expectations, and whether a significant
number of others have made similar complaints or are likely to have
experienced similar problems. For many complaints, a reasonable outcome isn’t
possible or pragmatic, and the best solution is to ignore them._

------
mwfunk
I think Marco is describing two things that I've felt strongly about for a
long time:

(1) The medium deeply influences the conversation. It just seems like human
nature that people are much more likely to speak up to complain about
something than to say that they liked something. On top of that, the Internet
as a medium results in an overwhelming slant towards negativity (the GIFT),
nitpickiness, etc. in online reviews and commenting systems. So, you have to
take this into account when using online sources for getting a sense of how
people feel about something.

An extreme example seems to be pretty much any Linux-centric forum anywhere.
An article about some distro or desktop environment or programming language or
anything really, no matter what's being discussed, will inevitably be filled
with comments about how much it sucks. The more helpful ones will be along the
lines of, "X sucks, you should use Y instead". People reply to that one with,
"Y sucks, you should use Z instead", where Z is more obscure than Y which is
more obscure than X. Eventually things peter out when the leaf nodes are all
about things so obscure that there's no one participating who can say that
they tried that, and it sucks too. The reader is left with the feeling that
absolutely everything is freaking terrible, except for some random thing
you've never heard of that no one uses, which is just not true.

(2) From a design perspective, he's basically just saying that you can't
please everybody, and attempting to do so may just end up pleasing no one.
Certain computer companies are well-known for focusing on a few very specific
products with relatively few config options, as opposed to other companies (HP
and Dell being prime examples) that try to exhaustively cover every possible
niche and top it off with a gazillion build options. The former is
intentionally limiting their appeal in order to make something that will make
a smaller group of people very, very happy, whereas the latter is trying to be
all things to all people.

These are both legitimate business strategies, but if I happen to be in that
target audience for the more specialized company, then they are pretty much
guaranteed to have my business. The key for success for the more specialized
company is to cast a wide enough net as to not restrict themselves to a niche
audience, have the design and engineering chops to offer stuff that the all-
things-to-all-people companies can't match, and not be tempted by market share
to dilute that vision. It's an inherently risky approach but it can be very
rewarding, financially and creatively.

------
kalid
An analogy I like to use: imagine you own a Thai restaurant. People come in
and love the food. Others don't like it, saying things like "You know, I
really prefer sushi, can you serve raw fish?" or "I really like spaghetti, can
you use more tomato sauce?"

You have to recognize when criticism means the customer is just not your
target market ("Look -- you're in a Thai restaurant!") vs. a real complaint on
an issue with your product or service ("Your waiters are rude" or "You are
using too much salt.").

Not all criticism is of the 2nd type. We want restaurants to be their best,
authentic selves, and not some amalgam of everyone's preferences.

------
pritianka
I don't know if I fully agree with this post. I mean its true you don't need
every customer but if someone uses your product or service and is upset by
specific features/aspects, its important to make them feel heard by
acknowledging their sentiment. That doesn't mean you go and build whatever
they wanted you to build. But it just means you value people who took the time
to say something. I think every customer or user wants to feel valued.

~~~
chipotle_coyote
In theory, I agree with this -- in practice, I suspect you have to do a bit of
subjective triage, particularly once you get past a certain volume level
(which is itself subjective). The key is "upset by specific features/aspects."

Bob writes to you, "Hey, I really like this app, but feature X is very
important to me." Sam writes to you and says, "Your app is a useless piece of
shit." Writing back to Bob to say, "Thanks for your feedback, I'll consider
that for the next version" -- or even to say, "Thanks for your feedback, but
I'm sorry to say that feature X isn't on our roadmap" -- may well be worth
your time. (Especially since your time, in this case, is probably about two
minutes, less if you set up a couple Text Expander snippets for this.)

But is writing back to Sam worth your time? It may be that Sam feels the same
way that Bob does, that he _mostly_ likes your app but considers feature X a
critical omission. But you have to get him to stop flinging flaming poop at
you and actually explain what his dilemma is. And he may just hate your app,
full stop. He may be too inarticulate to explain what he needs from your app.
He may just like flinging flaming poop.

------
ruswick
Marco seems to achieve quite a bit of acclaim from saying very intuitive
things in a very verbose way.

This entire piece could be effectively conveyed in a pair of sentences:
"Reviews are arbitrary and uncontrollable, and reviewers are irrational and
untrustworthy. Reviews should be ignored so long as your app is doing as well
as you'd like."

~~~
toasterlovin
The trick is not in the saying of the idea, it is in the preparation of a nest
for the idea in the next host brain.

------
jonathanjaeger
Just a little anecdote that I've found interesting since I started my music
website HypedSound. I'm completely redesigning and relaunching the site with
the same community and a new vision in a couple months, but right now I still
have a paid featured artist spot on the homepage. I've had a fair number of
people pay for this spot and not one single person has complained. Nothing
about wanting their money back, not liking that they paid for it, or anything.
Sometimes I feel like the people who pay for an app or feature of your product
are less likely to complain than someone who uses it for free. That being
said, at the moment I think they have every right to complain because the site
is slow and clunky and lacks any sort of design hierarchy or central theme :)

------
mojaam
"The most important input for your pricing is quite simple: are enough people
buying it at its current price? If not, you might have a pricing problem, but
not necessarily. If enough people are buying it, you face the interesting
question: can you charge more?"

Wished he'd defined what's "enough" at least for him.

~~~
obviouslygreen
I think that's the point: He can't, and if he did, it wouldn't be relevant to
anyone else. Figuring out what entails "enough" is exactly the exercise that
makes the question useful.

