One of the points in the lecture was that you have to be ready to abandon a feature, even if you really believe in it, if user feedback indicates a lack of interest.
But what if it's one of those things (like TiVo and Uber) that people think, in advance, that they don't need -- but it turns out they'll be totally hooked once they try it?
What matters is how you determine that user feedback actually indicates a lack of interest.
Shear mentions in the lecture that you should avoid directly asking about features or your product. "You want to learn about what's already in their heads. You want to avoid putting things there." That pretty much precludes doing things like describing your idea for TiVo/Uber to people and asking what they think. Instead, it would make more sense ask about pain points. If all of your interviews indicate that people absolutely adore the process of finding, hailing, riding in, and paying for taxis, then you'd be more justified in determining that there's a lack of interest in something like Uber.
It's subtle, but there's a difference between abandoning something because people don't have the problem you're trying to solve and abandoning something because people don't think your solution is good.
Take your Uber example. If you'd done user interviews pre-Uber, it's uncertain whether anyone would have said "yes I want to call a black car on my phone" or not. But I can pretty much guarantee that people would have said "yes, sometimes I have trouble getting a taxi to come pick me up".
User interviews at this stage are about validating the problem, not the solution.
Aren't we also encouraged to embrace "disruptive" ideas that change the status quo? No focus groups, full of average people who are content with the default is going to give that much meaningful feedback for game changing features IMO...
"These average people who are content with the default" are going to be your customers. My grandpa has an iPhone and his friend uses uber all the time. Both are very conservative and might fall into that realm of 'average people' yet use disruptive game changing ideas.
Get out there and empathize with real people with real problems. You'll find that even the most boring, ho-hum, run of the mill person will be happy to lay down hard cash for your game changing idea if it fixes THEIR problem.
That being said, focus groups are a horrible way to get meaningful feedback. Customer interviews and other more in depth ethnographic techniques are going to deliver what you're looking for.
Focus groups are about getting feedback on a draft of a product. They're completely different from what I'm talking about, where you're getting feedback on your thoughts on what problems exist.
Comments
One of the points in the lecture was that you have to be ready to abandon a feature, even if you really believe in it, if user feedback indicates a lack of interest.
But what if it's one of those things (like TiVo and Uber) that people think, in advance, that they don't need -- but it turns out they'll be totally hooked once they try it?
What matters is how you determine that user feedback actually indicates a lack of interest.
Shear mentions in the lecture that you should avoid directly asking about features or your product. "You want to learn about what's already in their heads. You want to avoid putting things there." That pretty much precludes doing things like describing your idea for TiVo/Uber to people and asking what they think. Instead, it would make more sense ask about pain points. If all of your interviews indicate that people absolutely adore the process of finding, hailing, riding in, and paying for taxis, then you'd be more justified in determining that there's a lack of interest in something like Uber.
It's subtle, but there's a difference between abandoning something because people don't have the problem you're trying to solve and abandoning something because people don't think your solution is good.
Take your Uber example. If you'd done user interviews pre-Uber, it's uncertain whether anyone would have said "yes I want to call a black car on my phone" or not. But I can pretty much guarantee that people would have said "yes, sometimes I have trouble getting a taxi to come pick me up".
User interviews at this stage are about validating the problem, not the solution.
Aren't we also encouraged to embrace "disruptive" ideas that change the status quo? No focus groups, full of average people who are content with the default is going to give that much meaningful feedback for game changing features IMO...
"These average people who are content with the default" are going to be your customers. My grandpa has an iPhone and his friend uses uber all the time. Both are very conservative and might fall into that realm of 'average people' yet use disruptive game changing ideas.
Get out there and empathize with real people with real problems. You'll find that even the most boring, ho-hum, run of the mill person will be happy to lay down hard cash for your game changing idea if it fixes THEIR problem.
That being said, focus groups are a horrible way to get meaningful feedback. Customer interviews and other more in depth ethnographic techniques are going to deliver what you're looking for.
Focus groups are about getting feedback on a draft of a product. They're completely different from what I'm talking about, where you're getting feedback on your thoughts on what problems exist.