Thanks Chuck, Yes I agree there could be a fear that this is double the cost of creating a single category. I sort of touched on that in the article, but didn't want to go too deep and make the post too long.
I also emphatically agree that category design is not the destination. In fact I sometimes say that category design is, unfortunately, not a great category name in itself.
It's like the jobs-to-be-done framing. Category Design is a drill bit, not a hole. IOW, people don't really want a category, they want where that takes them. Which is differentiation and a valuable market that they can lead.
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.
I do think that category design can still warranted even when there is a "river" of demand, for the purpose of differentiation.
Let's imagine I have invented a new type of eBike, with some great new drive train or something that gives it 30% more power and range than others. (I'm making this up as I write, so bear with me!)
The category of eBike certainly has a river of demand already flowing to it, but the supply side is very noisy and competitive. Is a 30% gain really enough for me to stand out against established brands? How long is that 30% defensible for, before as you say we get stuck with inertia and someone beats us with 35%?
So what if instead, I create a bridge category of "Rotary ebike" (Or whatever hints at the differentiating POV of my product)
This allows me to market the reasons why a Rotary drive bike is the right choice and regular eBikes are the wrong choice. It's a completely different and differentiated story.
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.
Thanks Chuck, Yes I agree there could be a fear that this is double the cost of creating a single category. I sort of touched on that in the article, but didn't want to go too deep and make the post too long.
I also emphatically agree that category design is not the destination. In fact I sometimes say that category design is, unfortunately, not a great category name in itself.
It's like the jobs-to-be-done framing. Category Design is a drill bit, not a hole. IOW, people don't really want a category, they want where that takes them. Which is differentiation and a valuable market that they can lead.
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.
Hi @chuck, thanks for such a thoughtful comment.
I do think that category design can still warranted even when there is a "river" of demand, for the purpose of differentiation.
Let's imagine I have invented a new type of eBike, with some great new drive train or something that gives it 30% more power and range than others. (I'm making this up as I write, so bear with me!)
The category of eBike certainly has a river of demand already flowing to it, but the supply side is very noisy and competitive. Is a 30% gain really enough for me to stand out against established brands? How long is that 30% defensible for, before as you say we get stuck with inertia and someone beats us with 35%?
So what if instead, I create a bridge category of "Rotary ebike" (Or whatever hints at the differentiating POV of my product)
This allows me to market the reasons why a Rotary drive bike is the right choice and regular eBikes are the wrong choice. It's a completely different and differentiated story.
Does that make sense?