
Harbingers of failed products - mkj
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/12/certain-customers-spell-doom-for-new-products/
======
Animats
The article doesn't tell you much, but the actual paper [1] is fascinating.
This isn't about tech. The data is for 27 million sales of packaged goods in
convenience stores. "For example, customers who purchased Diet Crystal Pepsi
are more likely to have purchased Frito Lay Lemonade (both of which failed). A
consumer who repeatedly purchases Diet Crystal Pepsi is even more likely to
have unusual preferences, and is more likely than other customers to choose
other new products that will fail in the future. ... These customers who
systematically buy products that fail are also customers who are more likely
to buy niche products that few other customers purchase."

The authors of the paper don't attempt to attach an explanation to the
results; they just look at its statistical significance for use in making
marketing decisions. The effect is only seen in some product categories. If
you read more into it than that, you're going beyond what the data says.

[1]
[https://marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/mktg/assets/File/Anderso...](https://marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/mktg/assets/File/Anderson-
Eric%202015_02_05_Harbingers.pdf)

------
thescribe
I had never considered this. I keep a 'graveyard of products' shelf, because
my appreciation appears to kill products. Maybe I am a bad omen for a product?

~~~
mkj
I guess that could be it. Somewhat related to the category of failed companies
- there a few people who always seem to work for startups doomed to failure,
but then a few years later a similar company goes really well doing the same
thing. Must be ahead of their time.

------
BraveNewCurency
I don't understand why the article is written as if there was a conclusion. It
seems like there are more questions than answers at this point.

Maybe the products were just too expensive and those "harbingers" are all just
rich people?

Or maybe those people were early adopters who saw potential value in the
product, but the product was just too shitty for mainstream consumers?

So if your product fails, just blame the people with low standards who
initially bought it!

------
DrScump
The title is clickbait-y (the harbingers are never identified) and the Ars
author's conclusions have little to do with the conclusions of the
researchers.

Example: "If something appeals to them, it’s unlikely that it will appeal to
the mainstream." No, it doesn't say that about the general cases -- that's
like saying "if a (harbinger) likes Star Wars, it's unlikely that Star Wars
will appeal to the mainstream." The only universe of products that is relevant
to harbinger behavior is _failed_ products.

------
ams6110
Some prior discussion

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9839344](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9839344)

------
mkj
The obvious solution is a database of these failing customers and preventing
them from buying the product, right?

~~~
xivzgrev
No the article was careful to note they don't cause the decline.

Rather youd want to involve them in early early tests of products. If they
like it change something quick!

------
bitwize
Conclusion: If you want to make money, design products that appeal to (male
and female) basic bitches.

