Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Chuck Coxhead's avatar

It makes sense for sure and I think a bridge category is a fine idea

In practice, I fear that it can be perceived as costing 2x in the minds of some stakeholders.

It’s the damned people that are not truly bought into category design that can force the org into a “stuck” position

In the case of Category design it is the destination, not the journey. In this journey, there be beasties in there.

Expand full comment
Chuck Coxhead's avatar

Is it too expensive to execute Category Design?

My thoughts are, if there is a "river" of demand in the existing category, then one might question why one would need to do anything at all. Change for change sake may not make sense.

The very concept of category design, to me, seems appropriate in these situations:

- startup

- stagnation

- decline

A "trickle" of demand may mean something else entirely, like a future fail, and that might compel a push to category design.

It can be expensive to create a category and attempt to steer the ship in the new direction. Frankly, the inertia could be too great to overcome.

It might be easier and less expensive to create a category under a new brand to alleviate the weight of the old category.

One thing I have observed to be an immutable truth...

"Everything has a life"

Every company must continue to innovate, invent, re-invent, invest, and reinvest.

If they do nothing, they will eventually see that end of life looming on the horizon.

So, is category expensive? Perhaps.

But, is it more expensive to do nothing? Not likely.

A Bridge Category is a fine idea, as long as the organization does not become stuck.

Getting stuck is a real and omni-present danger.

Expand full comment
2 more comments...

No posts